Featured An Open and Shut Case, Revelation 22 & Daniel 12

Oh, sorry, it was your second post. And so your position seems to be, "Do unto others what they did unto you."

 

you have a big prob - THOSE THINGS HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED! No way around that big ole bear of a FACT!

 

You are displaying ignorance in the field of hermeneutics. "Spiritualizing," and "allegorizing" are synonyms in hermeneutics. This approach did not exist in the early church, but was brought into the churches by Origen, who got it from the Jewish interpreter Philo. Anything other than grammatical-historical interpretation is allegorical/spiritual interpretation.

As for "symbolic," every literal interpreter recognizes figures of speech (symbolic language) in the Bible, and interprets it as such.

The word "signify" in Rev. 1:1 is the Greek word semaino, which is used five other times in the NT, never once meaning "tell by symbols." It refers 3 times to when Jesus prophesied when and how He would literally die, once for a prophecy by the Holy Spirit that there would be a literal famine (Acts 11:28), and once for the charges against a prisoner (Acts 25:27). So in the four times it is used in reference to prophecy other than Rev. 1:1, it always refers to literal fulfillment.

(We have an American saying, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." )

 

This is such the case with the term "futurism."

It lumps all who believe in a future in which unfulfilled prophecy will be filled.

With that lump, inevitably is this attempt to discredit "Darby" as if he were some nut case.

Amazingly, I have not encountered a single person that would desire to discredit Darby that has actually extensively read what he wrote.

I get that from the post, above, also. The regurgitation assumptions from someone who has no true extensive reading to show proof.

Here is a challenge.

Find first hand statements and writing from Darby and use those quotes to disprove his views.

Until a few months ago, I admittedly had not read much of his work, but since have spent days speed reading through great sections. Frankly, from what I have read there is little that is not doctrinally unsound.

But the other matter that those who lump into the term "futurism" is that there are those (as myself) who are NOT Darby dispensationalists.

We may use "dispensations" as a way to outline the Scriptures, as a tool to of historical event happening, but we are not "Darby dispensational." We may not even "dispense" the divisions as "Darby" did. We use the term in the way of social/political/economic/and religious practice changes in history and not in manner a statement of purpose of salvation.

We believe in the bride of Christ enjoying the reunion dinner provided in the current heaven with the Lord.
We believe in a literal bodily return of Christ.
We believe in a literal shackling of Satan for 1000 years.
We believe in a liter Christ rule of 1000 years on this earth at the City in which David ruled.
We believe in a final bloodless uprising.
We believe in a final judgment before the Creator God.
We believe in an eternal Lake of Fire for all unbelievers and a new heaven an new earth for the redeemed.
We believe that there is no sun or moon for the light is provided by the very presence of God.
We believe that there is no temple in that place for the very presence of God is there.
We believe that He will wipe away all tears at that place.

I am believe in a future hope, because that is the Bible teaching.

Christ did not return in 70AD and leave behind Apostles. (see post above).

Christ did not return in 70AD and it is a lie propagated from the RCC just as ungodly as all their other lies.

Why any believer would place their agreement with such a lie is a demonstration of the power of the deceiver and his use of deception.

Truly, he was a liar from the beginning.

 

One can no longer hold to a Dispy view, and stillsee premil in the Bible, as still think the second coming event will be seen by all, and bring BIG changes to Earth!

 

Premillennial view is not contained only and sole to the Darby Dispensation model, but is a view that existed from the ECF.

ALL other views were developed after a determined rejection of the premillennial view. In all views that result, there is not a single one that was not first propagated by the papists, and not established to place doubt upon the authority of the Scriptures. ONLY the premillennial view stands alone as separate and distinct from such.

The premillennial view was first and is the most closely aligned with the most literal rendering of prophetic statements concerning the Messiah.

Basic Darby thinking was taking what was already held (the premillennial view) and molding it into what became a popular presentation. The shameful claim that the church is separate from and not grafted into Israel was NOT unfamiliar with the typical teaching of that day, nor of this day.

It is what the typical covenant teachers present, too. Such hold the church as a separate entity from the nation called Israel, that God forever rejected the national Israel.

What Darby showed, was the truth, that the national Israel was not rejected and that prophetic statements concerning the nation of Israel are yet to be fulfilled (some were and are being but in Darby's day were yet to be)

Can anyone actually find a copy of a "chart" Darby may have produced?

I have found many charts, but have never located one that was actually used by Darby.

Not that the charts are inaccurate, but just for the information.

 

Futurism is a teaching that says the church is not mentioned in the main part of Revelation and all those prophecies are future.

Preterism is much the same but says they were fulfilled before AD 70

Both have the same overall effect.

 

"John of Japan,

So you see the growing Church as a literal fulfillment here;
\
4 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

or here;
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

How much is the church mentioned in the Gospels, Romans, Acts, Hebrews, James, Philemon, ...?

Could it be there is not much about “the church” in the Revelation given John because the church is watching the events from a place of safety?

Is the church currently in such a place?

Is not prophecy concerning the church shown as victorious?

Is the church currently in this world in other then either persecution or lukewarm?

When (future) will such be the standing of the church as both the bride and victorious?

For to be victorious, one must have a conquest. There is no conquest at the final judgment of the nations, so the conquest must be sometime in the future.

 

Are you asking me or telling me??

 

Oh, come now, you know I've never ignored them, but have posted time and again on them. In fact, I just noted on this thread that your "soon" in Rev. is mistaken. The word does not appear there in the KJV except in two instances as "as soon as," meaning "when."

But hey, as long as you're here, I'll quickly refute your allegation that I ignore the time statements. Look at "quickly," the Greek word taxu. It occurs four times as follows:

Re 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Re 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Re 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Now, why do I have no problem with these "time statements"? It's because they are not time statements, but statements of speed, both in the Greek and the English. If we say a basketball player is "quick," we don't mean he'll be right with you, but that he has speed on the basketball court.

 

You desire them to be dubious, and therefore that makes them dubious. That is just poor reasoning.

The dates are historically accurate, and the evidence is verifiable by the sciences.

Yet there is not a single historical evidence or verifiable statement that presents your scheme of some return in 70AD is valid. Not a single one!

Two tests of a prophet.

1) ALL the prophet prophesied had to be consistent with previous revelations concerning that prophesied. That is nothing could be contradictory.

2) A sign was always given as to the authority of the prophet (the reason the sign was ask from the Christ by the rulers). If there was no sign, no authority or credence was extended to the prophet.​

Your view of prophecy fails because it violates both these principles.

Prophecy is being fulfilled. It is being shown to be accurate, and some mid evil deceitful Jesuit papist who developed a scheme to lie cannot prevent the truth.

But you will continue in the lie, because you desire it to be true.

It is called cognitive dissonance, usually associated with the liars of cults and those that cling to the lies as the truth despite all evidences to the contrary.

 

Nope. But once again, your posts are full of belittling accusations. Why don't you just debate, and leave the accusations out of it?

Point taken.

Great! You are actually engaging this time instead of quitting in disgust.

Two more belittling accusations. Ho, hum.

What's an "imminent vent"?

Of course you mean "imminent event." And of course all of the events following this verse took place immediately in Ch. 1-3, so I have no problem with the verse.

(Go ahead, you can make more belittling accusations now. )

 

You are not attending to the Greek?

Speed, is not always a matter of time, it is also the tempo, a factor of rushing, not date/time setting.

Generally, it is that which is unhindered progress.

Telling my wife I will be back soon, is not a matter of settings on the clock, but the unhindered progress that will be made, the tempo, the rush.

That I will not dilly - dally around and waste her and my time.

 

Yes!!

And when the Scriptures use any figure of speech it is generally shown as being used as a figure of speach.

Just as the quote you showed.

BUT, what the typical lie, of all schemes that deny a literal 2nd coming millennial reign does follow, is making of what is not allegory into an interpretation that must invoke foundations of sand - no substance.