Featured 5 reasons why the Preterist and/or semi-preterist position is impossible

I agree OR, but the Second Coming or the Day of the Lord is 1000 years long.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Revelation 20
4 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 worshiped 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.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 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.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Then comes the New Heaven and New Earth after the fiery destruction of Satan and his followers.

But this has all been rehearsed on the BB for years and I suppose we will continue to do so till we are gathered to the Lord (in whatever manner) and discuss it in person. My guess is that we will then have lost our appetite for this kind of debate, we will have bigger fish to fry besides we will have nothing to discuss as we will all know the ultimate truth.

Until then - blessings to you brother OR.

HankD

 

Normally I avoid the millennium talk due to all the emotion involved.

But Hank, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the millennium or the day of the Lord. Keep reading and you will see he is addressing when it will come. Telling people that the God is not slow to fulfill his promise. He is stating that what time means to us, is not what it means to God. Verse 9 shows God is looking for redeemed children, not a time table.

It not how long the day of the Lord will be. Peter is addressing when it will come.

 

You are taking one verse of Scripture, verse 8, and are ignoring everything else Peter is saying.

8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

As for verse 8 it is simply telling us that time as we know it does not exist with GOD, in my opinion!

Verse 10 states: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

So you are making this Day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night last 1000 years? That is stretching credibility and is certainly not consistent with a literal interpretation.

 

No, not exactly - the day of the lord starts off when He comes in the air to take us out or hide us from the wrath of God (The Tribulation) which is coming upon the whole world, then comes the millennium after which come the destruction of the old heaven and earth bringing in the new heaven and earth.

Right now we have been in The Day of Man since we were banished from Eden, soon Jesus will come for His own, then begins the Day of the Lord.He will judge the present world,then He (with no interference from satan who will be in the bottomless pit) will rule and reign for 1000 years then will come the fire spoken of in 2 Peter 3, then the Eternal Day.

HankD

 

Well, you are right and I agree but I believe it also carries the other message as well, that the Day of the Lord is a 1000 year event which begins "like a thief in the night" but ends in a fiery cataclysm.

HankD

 

Every system of eschatology has its problem area.

The big issue IMO is not 2 Peter 3:8-10 but Revelation 20 where the "thousand years" is dismissed as not literal though "the thousand years" is mention several times.
Why then not be consistent and say that the "the first resurrection" of Revelation 20 is not literal as well?

Personally I see this Board as a way to discuss our differences in order to understand each other and expand our knowledge as brethren.

I don't see it as a place to go ten rounds looking for the knockout punch.

Although I have engaged others in that manner and even enjoyed it.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa


HankD

 

Coming from someone who was an academic in Dispensationalism and has journal articles written in the Journal of Dispensational Theology, all I have to say is:



Even when I was a dispie, I would have never said something so pompous.

 

I agree that the 1000 years of Revelation is a problem, whether it is mentioned one time or six times.

The term "sand of the sea" is used at least five times in as many verses of Scripture over a period of ~2000 years to describe the number of the descendants of Abraham. Do you apply a literal interpretation to that number.

When GOD said HE gave the land to Israel for an everlasting possession do you take that to mean forever? Chafer and some dispensationalist apparently do as they claim GOD has an earthly people that will dwell on the earth forever. Yet appears that many dispensationalists are perfectly willing to reduce forever to 1000 years.

GOD told Elijah that he had reserved 7000 men to Himself in the Northern Kingdom who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Did HE mean exactly 7000 men, what about the women, or did that number simply indicate that GOD knows those who belong to HIM?

 

All I can say is you are a handsome young man who obviously enjoys a good laugh.

Frankly, Calypso's remark saddened me deeply, but not to the point of tears! But then I was never seduced by the Darby/Scofield doctrine.

 

I've posted 3 posts in response to you, only 1 of which have you actually discussed. Why take you seriously if you can't engage in serious dialogue?

 

Greektim I was going to respond to some of his points but as you stated it would be a waste of my time. I was looking for a good conversation on the topic, but I can see the "fingers in the ears" attitude. Wanna bet he's also KJVonly as well?

 

Get over yourself. I do that w/ all labels. I call myself a Calvie. Methinks your skin is quite thin.

I see you complete missed my point about these guys. My issue with them is not what they said but the source for their writings. But you didn't address that, and I don't expect you will.

My point in the TWO guys you mentioned were that you place so much weight on them for dating, but you think they are wrong about the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, etc. You do realize that they have a different view than you do right? So my point was, why do you trust them for dating the book of Rev but not for their theology. Let me guess... you'll ignore that too.

So "John" automatically means the apostle John??? No other Christian bore that name. I wonder if you have actually taken the time to look at the internal evidence to see if it is consistent with the other Johannine writings. This isn't a matter of question inspiration. That piety doesn't get you anywhere. This is about being fair with the text. The text does not require that this is John the apostle. So until you prove FROM THE TEXT that this is John the apostle, then my comments stand. Therefore, I take inspiration more seriously than you do b/c I'm not willing to go beyond the text.

And if me being gracious by saying "seems to be" rather than the pontification that you talk, then I choose to err on the side of grace. I don't know... silly me.

By the rules of literature. Here is what kills me, you think your view is so right that you put it on par w/ John. However, before v. 10 and the word "prophecy" the word "apocalypse" is used. And perhaps you weren't aware, but there is this ancient genre of literature called apocalyptic. Revelation is an apocalyptic work. It certainly has elements of prophecy in it, I'll grant. But prophecy is rarely forecasting the future like you want it to be. It is mainly preaching covenantal faithfulness. Rev. also exhibits the genre of epistle in some places. But the overriding genre is an apocalyptic. And I'd say the first word of the book trumps whatever you think. So, yes we should believe John when he says he wrote an Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.

As for the apocalypse thing, see my comments above.

As for calling what I believe dishonest and unbelief, that is borderline, sir. You can be banned for comments like that. Me being sensitive to the genre of literature that Rev is as well as see that in the very first word of the text helps me a great deal. That is not unbelief or dishonesty. Again, I am treating the text in the highest of regard. So disparage my view all you like. But do not bring my faithfulness to the text into question. That is low, sir. Show some class.

And your interpretation is valid because... ex cathedra? If you look at it, we are both arguing for a genre based on a word from the text. My word just happens to be the very first word of the book and consequently the title. So my "interpretation" has good footing. Again, I'll grant you the prophetic element in Rev as long as you acknowledge that the majority of the prophetic genre is about the proephet's present day situation. Like Jeremiah or Isaiah or Elijah or Haggai or Zechariah or any other prophet.

Yes, we are all dullards. Thank you for saving us from our stupidity.

So like I said, yes, John told us what the book is "An Apocalypse of Jesus Christ."

The deuteronomistic call to not add or subtract, however, has nothing to do with this discussion. You are confusing one thing with something else. That was not a statement about interpretation. And if you are so certain that yours is right, then we are seeing pontification once again.

Just in case, you do understand what I meant by the phrase "pontification" and ex cathedra right? That means you are speaking on the same authority as the pope. Just checkin'

I'm glad you have dedicated 30 years of your life to this. Great!

But that doesn't give you the right to be a donkey and write off everyone you disagree with. Feel free to substitute "donkey" with another word. I, like Paul and Luther, am not opposed to strong language.

That was said of the prophets under the discussion of the genre of prophecy. So no they are not all future. Surely you know that much. Maybe 5% is future in the prophets. But most of it is simply preaching covenantal fidelity.

This is beyond the scope of Rev and I think you ought to make a separate thread.

All I will say in response is that Rev. 5 sees Jesus as already victorious and enthroned. To say otherwise goes against the grammar of the passage. So if he is enthroned and victorious, then the Kingdom has come. I do not believe it is consummated yet. But it has certainly come. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

 

Ummm... you mentioned your 30 years first. You wore it like a badge of honor. But, and forgive the academic snob in me, 30 years of unacademic study does not have that much weight in my estimation. My guess is, you have been this close-minded for years and only read literature that agrees with your view. Sounds like another character I know on this board. Wait... are you really Evangelist6589??? J/K Even he wouldn't talk this dogmatically about this stuff. And he is a dispie (and a calvie).

Well, I am trying to "answer a fool in his folly" so he may turn. At the least, I just want to see your attitude and dogmatism ease up. But I may have to go with that other proverb right next to the one above and stop "answering a fool in his folly".

This is where you hit rock bottom. I am reporting this post. You basically equate me with Jehovah's Witnesses. In my mind, that is saying I am not a Christian. However, I must say that I am not arguing for preterism, just against your futurism. When it comes to Rev, I'm mostly an idealist w/ a smattering of futurism and preterism. But that is a longer post than I want to get in to.

So you equated me with a cult that denies the deity of Jesus. That is calling a spade a spade???

That works both ways, sir. Let's see how well you do in your upbraiding.

Really... you don't want people to read your posts??? Seems to be a strange strategy. Bold(!)... but strange.

 

No more than your 30 years of self-study I guess.

Hey... wanna read my thesis??? It is about Revelation.

 

To answer a question proposed by Calypsis, that no one has showed that 666 has shown in history. Nero's name and title equal 666 in Hebrew.

the second year of Emperor Nero", refers to him by his name and title.[38]*In Hebrew it is*Nron Qsr*(Pronounced "Nerōn Kaisar").

Nron Qsr

The Greek version of the name and titletransliterates*into*Hebrew*as נרון קסר, and yields a numerical value of 666,[38]*as shown:

Resh(ר)Samekh(ס)Qoph(ק)Nun(נ)Vav(ו)Resh(ר)Nun(נ)Sum200+ 60+100+50+6+200+50=666

It should also be noted that the Nestle Aland Critical text shows a variant of 616 used in place of 666 in some manuscript. If you Translate Nero and his title from *Latin to Hebrew, you get 616. Nero fits both numbers used in Greek manuscripts.

Resh(ר)Samekh(ס)Qoph(ק)Vav(ו)Resh(ר)Nun(נ) 200+60+100+6+200+50=616