Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

I don't see how Strong's numbering system can become out of date.

The BLB uses updated Strong's definitions -

"“Strong's Definitions” is available for free through the public domain and was used as our source material. Over time we have refined the definitions and updated them manually according to a physical copy of “Strong's Definitions” and Perschbacher's Analytical Greek Lexicon. Our descriptions thereof are based upon those found in The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible."​

A search for NEW STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE found the publication date 2003.

I suggest it as a useful on-line tool for your students. It's certainly very convenient as we consider the meaning & interpretation of Scripture.

Lodic's link was directly to the Greek, not the Hebrew. Strong's G1504

Not anonymous - Larry Pierce is given as the source. It is straightforward to read down the link to the Scriptures where the word is used, to consider the relevance of the indicated usages.

 

1. As I understand it, Paul is speaking of "physical" Israel and of "faithful" Israel. Going down to verse 30, we see that Israel had pursued righteousness by the Law, but failed. Gentiles attained righteousness through faith. So, Israel was rejected, but the people of Israel need the Gospel, as Paul discusses in chapter 10.

2. Going on to Romans 11:5-6, we see that God has kept a remnant, according to the election of grace. If it is by grace, it is no longer of works. This seems to tie in with the doctrine of election, because Paul says that Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect have obtained it (v. 7). As I understand it, only those Jews who have faith in Christ will be grafted back in. Otherwise, this goes back to works.

 

I've always understood the "day as a 1,000 years" to be an illustration of God's perspective. The fact that 1,000 years is used so often in Rev 20 doesn't necessarily mean that it is a literal 1,000 years. John keeps pointing to the same period of time. I believe it to be an illustration of a long period of time, which may or may not be an actual millennium.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the numbering system is out of date, though if you actually know Greek it is superfluous.

I have never looked at the "New Strong's..." so I won't comment on it. However, the "Strong's" method is generally glosses, and not actual definitions. I just discussed that with my Greek class yesterday. They are required to know the glosses from Black's grammar, but beginners tend to think that the glosses tell the whole story, and they do not.

As for Perschbacher's, it is notoriously full of mistakes. I would not trust his glosses.

My Greek 101-102 students are not allowed to use software or websites. My Bible translation MA students are allowed to, and sometimes use the BLB, which is a generally good website. However, I certainly hope that no one on the BB thinks that by accessing the BLB they can substitute for the 1000s of hours of study required to become knowledgeable in Biblical languages.

But he was discussing Genesis.

Aha. Thanks for the link. Larry does a great job with Bible software, but he is not a scholar (to the best of my knowledge. The link you gave says, "Larry Pierce combined what Dr. Strong cited with Smith's Bible Dictionary and Dr. Thayer cited in his abridged Thayer's 1889 Greek-English Lexicon. It is keyed to Kittel's 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.'"

However, these sources are not that reliable. First of all, Smith's Bible Dictionary was written in 1863, so it is way out of date. Thayer's was written in 1889, before the discovery of the papyri and the improved definitions that resulted, so it is out of date, though my beginners use it. Kittel's is still useful, but depends too much on etymology, as authors such as Barr and Silva have pointed out. I have Kittel's but rarely consult it.

 

So you keep saying. You haven't brought up any "fresh" argument, and I don't have anything to say that I haven't already said.

 

That is exactly what I was saying. God is infinite, and exists outside of time, so he looks at all of human time together. But it has to be a literal day and literal 1000 years, or Peter's theological statement is meaningless. It is not figurative language.

Very well. If John's 1000 years is figurative, what figure of speech is it? Tell you what, I'm going to start a thread on this, because it would be a great subject to explore. Meet you there, if you feel so inclined.

 

No sir, I cannot.

 

So according to you, ". . . shall be caught up . . . ," only at best implicitly means the "rapture." Which follows the the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18). And ". . . they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. . . ." (Revelation 20:4-6). And according to you the text only at best implicitly teaches the millennium after the resurrection.

 

I don't believe in the rapture at all. I do believe in the resurrection, which will come after the "millennium". However, I don't believe the millennium will be a literal 1,000 years. I see that @John of Japan has just started a post on that very topic. Does that answer your question, Brother?

 

I agree. Jesus was sent first to the Jew, then, other Israelis, and finally, to the gentiles. There are Scriptural examples of His saving people from all those groups.

Paul made it plain to some gentiles that God would readily "graft" Jews to His "vine" if they met His conditions, which are, of course, the same for everyone. Now, while He's gonna restore Israel & Judah as one nation again, each individual, to be saved, must come to Jesus on his/her own, same as anyone else. Just being a Jew doesn't guarantee anyone salvation.

 

There's no "fresh" argument to bring up. You either believe history, as shaped by Scripture, or you don't. And that history proves preterism is false.

 

Yes, ETHNIC Israel as a nation

Here is your problem! What was cut off, broken off = Ethnic Israel = is the only possible entity that could be grafted back in "again" as it is Ethnic Israel that was cut off. God has NEVER cut off the remnant of elect! Indeed, that is Paul's point, when Israel as a nation was rejected by God, God ALWAYS has a remnant.

Moreover, in verse 26-27 spiritual Israel is NEVER called "Jacob" which is a term that characterized the pre-wrestling event between the son of Isaac and God. This term as far as a type is a type of UNREGENERATE NATIONAL ISRAEL which has always been the case from the conception of Israel as a nation until the present day.

 

Then, we may be getting somewhere!

I believe this image will be set up in the temple the Jews will build in Jerusalem, as Daniel 9 & 11, Matthew 24, & Rev. 13 & 17 all tie in together . Daniel 11 says he will SET UP the AOD in the temple, so it must be that image. The beast's exalting himself above everything that's ever been worshipped as a god will be the culmination of the AOD.

(Please remember, the Jews fully intend to resume animal sacrifices when they build that temple. It'll simply be a waste of meat, of course, as the Old Covenant is over.)

 

His view makes complete and utter absolute nonsense! He does not understand the common telescopic prophetic tool used by all prophets including Christ in the Olivet Discourse. Prophets would take a near catastrophic event and clothe it in end time language because it served as a vehicle to express what would occur at the end of the world. The OT prophets did this with the destruction of Egypt, destruction of Nineveh, destruction of Babylon and Jesus did this with the near AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. It is a simple principle and undeniably used over and over again by Biblical prophets and it is obvious that Jesus is following the same practice.

Moreover, in verse 26-27 spiritual Israel is NEVER called "Jacob" which is a term that characterized the pre-wrestling event between the son of Isaac and God. This term as far as a type is a type of UNREGENERATE NATIONAL ISRAEL which has always been the case from the conception of Israel as a nation until the present day.

 

That's why I say that, although God is gonna make Judah & Israel one nation again, & restore their fortunes, (NOT because they deserve it, but to keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & David) the INDIVIDUAL Israeli must still come to Jesus, same as anyone else, to be saved.

 

I'll say it again - Scripture shapes history, but you are looking for a literal fulfillment of symbolic events. But then, both of us are repeating what we've said before.

 

This is one candlestick with seven lamps but in Revelation there are "two" lampstands each having seven lamps. In Revelation 1 there is no personification but there is clear personification of these two in Revelation 11.

Yes, but Daniel may have been using the common telescopic method and so the "little horn" as far as the near prophesy is "Anticohus Epiphanes" but as far as the ultimate application the Anti-Christ at the end of the world.