America in Bible Prophecy

[Grasshopper]

Preterism is the result of bad methods of biblical interpretation. Rather than using the clearer language of the epistles to try to understand the more difficult language of the book of Revelation at the Olivet Discourse, they do exactly the opposite. The result is they are then forced to allegorize what are clearly fairly literal and clear sections of scripture.

You don't have to allegorize anything, just understand how the NT writers use the language. If you ignore how the OT Prophets use language, which you do, then you will fail to understand how the NT writers and Jesus use the exact same language.

I want to bring up two quick things. First, both Peter and Paul refer to the last days as a future event in epistles written around the mid 60's AD. In 2 Peter 3 he says, "there shall come in the last days scoffers..."

Wow, this is an easy one if you don't ignore context and the previous verse:


2Pe 3:2 to be mindful of the sayings said before by the holy prophets, and of the command of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour,
2Pe 3:3 this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on,

Peter is not saying the last days are future, he is quoting the OT Prophets and apostles who spoke of things that would happen in the last days. Things which were happening!(see Jude).

There shall come, not there currently are. Peter obviously believes he is not in the last days, that they are yet to come.

No, read it again.

Couple that with the statement that a day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. What point is that statement if Peter is discussing events that will come about within a decade, if not within 4-5 years? If, on the other hand, he is discussing an event at least 2,000 years away, then it make sense.

Eric has already addressed this. This is a quote from the OT describing what time is to God, not a filter to which we are to run all time-texts through. If so, then the 1000 years of Revelation might be one day.

Then Paul, in 2 Timothy 3 says, "in the last days perilous times shall come..." Again, shall come. Paul, writing around the same time as Peter's second epistle, doesn't believe he is in the last days. He says things like, "men shall be lovers of their own selves..." Shall be? Shouldn't he say they already are if the events of that text are going to come about within a decade?

Paul was warning Timothy of things he was going to experience and probably was already. Why would he experience these things? Because he was living in the last days. He told him to turn from such men:

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Why should he warn Timothy to turn from things 2000 years away?

Now to remove any doubt what the NT writers believed regarding the "last days" and whether they were living in them lets just read their plain words:

Peter knew full well he was living in the last days. He quotes Joel and says what Joel predicted would occur in the last days were occuring on the day of Pentecost:

Act 2:16 `But this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
Act 2:17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

How much clearer can Peter get?? Well, he actually can get even more clearer:

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

It is because he knew the times he was living in that he could proclaim this:

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

This is the same Peter that wrote 2 Peter 3! Fits perfectly in a preterist framework but is contradictory in a futurist framework.

What did Paul have to say:

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Pretty clear Paul believed he ws living at the end of the ages. Now the writer of Hebrews leaves absolutely no doubt:

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb 9:26 since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;

All these writers are very clear they were living at the end of the age and last days.

Secondly, Peter is clearly describing the creation of the physical world when he talks about the earth standing out of the water and in the water by the word of God. That's straight out of Genesis 1. Then he describes events that look an aweful lot like the flood of Noah's day. Then he describes a future event, in which the world created by God would be destroyed and a new heavens and earth would be created. Peter has been very clear and very literal thus far in his second epistle, yet all of the sudden everything is symbolic. Though it looks like he is talking about the literal world, we are supposed to believe that he isn't? It just doesn't make sense. It is bad biblical interpretation.

What world was destroyed in the flood?

Before denouncing preterism you need to study it first. It is quite obvious you have not.

 

[BobRyan]

I want to bring up two quick things.

1. A. First, both Peter and Paul refer to the last days as a future event in epistles written around the mid 60's AD. In 2 Peter 3 he says, "there shall come in the last days scoffers..." There shall come, not there currently are. Peter obviously believes he is not in the last days, that they are yet to come. Couple that with the statement that a day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. What point is that statement if Peter is discussing events that will come about within a decade, if not within 4-5 years?

If, on the other hand, he is discussing an event at least 2,000 years away, then it make sense.

1B. Then Paul, in 2 Timothy 3 says, "in the last days perilous times shall come..." Again, shall come. Paul, writing around the same time as Peter's second epistle, doesn't believe he is in the last days. He says things like, "men shall be lovers of their own selves..." Shall be? Shouldn't he say they already are if the events of that text are going to come about within a decade?

2. Secondly, Peter is clearly describing the creation of the physical world when he talks about the earth standing out of the water and in the water by the word of God. That's straight out of Genesis 1. Then he describes events that look an aweful lot like the flood of Noah's day. Then he describes a future event, in which the world created by God would be destroyed and a new heavens and earth would be created. Peter has been very clear and very literal thus far in his second epistle, yet all of the sudden everything is symbolic. Though it looks like he is talking about the literal world, we are supposed to believe that he isn't? It just doesn't make sense.

It is bad biblical interpretation.

Good points - all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" thing is not referring to the days of Noah. Peter is discussing the promise of His coming,

Indeed -- and he argues that just as the world was destroyed by water -- so in the future by fire to the point that the very "elements melt with fervent heat" --- John describes this in Rev 21 saying that the "present heavens and earth passed away".

Then Peter says that by the same word that created the world God is reserving this present world unto destruction at that last day.

Exactly - you would have to spiritualize away the entire flood event in order to spiritualize away the 2nd coming event of 2Peter 3.

Then, at this point, Peter refers to the one day, thousand years statement.

Note - Peter does not say "one day is a thousand years" -- he says "with God one day is AS a thousand years AND a thousand years AS one day". He says both!

Thus he is not describing a time ruler - but rather a time principle for God's time -- a day is not too short for God -- nor a 1000 years too long.

However IF There is also a prophetic ruler here -- then the closest you get is that just as the earth was made in 6 days and God rested the 7th -- so we have the work of salvation from sin for 6,000 years and then then 1000 year millennium.

Peter is making the point that time means nothing to God in between statements that God is going to destroy the world and that He isn't slack concerning His promise. The implications are clear - Peter is saying that a long passage of time between His first and second advent shouldn't be seen as proof that He isn't coming back because time has no meaning to God. Instead Peter assures us He will come back, but that right now is being longsuffering to usward.

Bingo! That is the only interpretation that takes into account all the details in the chapter!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
The preterists love to claim that if one section was fulfilled then ALL the texts are in the past. I am not preterist -- but rather historicist.

12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal[/b], and there was a [b]great earthquake; and the sun became black[/b] as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood[/b];
13 and the stars of the sky fell[/b] to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind.
14 The sky was split apart like a scroll[/b] when it is rolled up, and [b]every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 Then the kings of the earth[/b] and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free[/b] man hid themselves in the cave[/b]s and among the rocks of the mountains;
16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ""Fall on us and hide us[/b] from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;[/b]
17 for the great day of their wrath[/b] has come, and who is able to stand?''

Thus I have never said that vs 14-17 are fullilled. But I have said that 12 and 13 are.

Which places us IN history - between 13 and 14.

Matt 24 - (speaking of events following the 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints)

Matt 24
29 ""But [b]immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and [b]they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDSOF THE SKY with power and great glory.
31 ""And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect[/b] from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Thus we are between vs 29 and 30 "in history" -- after the "stars will fall from the sky" statement.

Which of course fits perfectly with "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened..." Matt 24 where we see the 1260 years of dark ages closes with the dark day event of the 18th century.

Obviously the reader notices that at no point does Christ in Matt 24 or John in Rev 6 say "all these signs happen two seconds apart".

so in the follow of time - we find ourselves at the point of Rev 6:13 going into vs 14 -- anticipating events there as the next to come.

And so also in Matt 24 we are just prior to the "powers of heavens will be shaken" but after the falling of the stars.

Where in those texts is there any indeterminable amount of time?

The amount of time between the events is not specified IN the text NOR does the text argue that all the signs happen two seconds apart. Nor would such an assumption be warranted from the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Michaeneu]

[FONT=&quot]I haven’t had any time but for peripheral attention here, but that has changed. Grasshopper wrote concerning my issue with the song of Moses: [/FONT]

Your quoting from the Song of Moses. It was not suggesting the events were "at hand" in that day but would be "at hand" in Israel's latter days. I'll quote Don Preston who has written extensively on this:

[FONT=&quot]Exactly what specific future perspective is the song of Moses referring to? The perspective is that of God’s and commences with finding Israel/Jacob in the wilderness, the time of the exodus (verse 10 and already past tense from Moses perspective here), and ends with the final destruction of their enemies and their ultimate restoration upon their land forever secure from those who God had used to chastise them (verses 36-43). The song of Moses is hardly from the perspective from the last days when it commences from the time of the exodus and ends with the consummation. Preston is up to his usual scriptural gymnastics and that is hardly sound hermeneutics. The specific verse in question, 35, is immediately followed by forecast the God will have compassion on Israel, specifically Jerusalem or Judah, at a future time when “their strength is gone and no one is left” and Isaiah prophecies of this specific event (this is prophetic eschatological intrusion).

“Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out. There is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up. These two things are come unto thee; who shall be sorry for thee? desolation, and destruction, and the famine, and the sword: by whom shall I comfort thee…. Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again: But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over.” Isa. 51:17:-23

We know the fall that is forecasted in the song of Moses pertains to what happened in Jerusalem or Judah by Paul’s expository in Romans 10 and 11 (Rom. 10:19).

Ironically Preston interprets Isaiah 51 as “projected imminence”, a transitory analysis the last days; such hyper-preterist gymnastics involves Jerusalem finding relief from their enemies at the very time that their judgment comes upon them at the hands of the Romans, at the very time their foot slides. This is a non sequitur as much of Postmillennium is; mere scriptural gymnastics to shore-up its faulty foundations. In truth the Jews have continued to be grafted in again since that time, which supports the inauguration or advancement of the kingdom that awaits its consummation or accomplishment only after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, when the Jew’s blindness ends, a protracted sense of “the last days”. Only after a protracted time, the last days, is the cup of God’s fury is taken from the Jews and given to them that have afflicted them. Preterism’s grasp of temporal indicators is completely untenable.

There are several texts that expound upon the last days in the NT; I’m going to analyze but one here.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come…. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Tim. 3:1, 12,-13

There can be no doubt that Paul is addressing those in Christ, the church here and the era portrayed, the last days, is a protracted time, not just the event of the cross until 70 AD. The Postmillennialist and Reconstructionist paradigm that portrays this age as the consummated kingdom succeeding the parousia simply refuses to grasp the scriptural and temporal evidence that the consummated kingdom is one in which Christ sits upon his throne on this earth and establishes true a lasting peace, which certainly represents total security for the church/Israel, from those who would persecute them. Christ’s kingdom establishes true peace not the impostor that Supersessionism invents. Supersessionism or Postmillennialism hasn’t a leg to stand on here and that is why it took a huge nose dive in esteem and advocates commencing with the great wars of this century. Unfortunately it is rearing it head once again.

No to your response and my reiteration to “prophetic eschatological intrusion” of verse 36 in the song of Moses against the forecast of Judah’s rejection of the stone the builders rejected. We have the forecast of Judah’s fall and judgment and then the advancement of the kingdom in the protracted last days, which culminates in the consummation or accomplished kingdom at the end of the time of the Gentiles—and that era being forecasted way back in Genesis 17:4.

Michael[/FONT]

 

[Michaeneu]

Before making bold claims that these men mock preterism, you might want to actually read some of their comments.

Obviously you didn’t grasp my meaning when I stated that those certain expositors made a mockery of preterism’s use of temporal indicators. In light of my expository of the song of Moses this still holds true even though they did drink from the fountain of covenant eschatology, of which I was well aware. Further evidence is in what they had to say on 2 Timothy 3 and Clarke’s comment on the temporal indicator in the Olivet Discourse.

John Gill: 2 Timothy 3. And these times will be "in the last days" of the apostolic age, and onward to the end of the world: the Jews generally understand by this phrase, when used in the Old Testament, the days of the Messiah; and which are the last days of the world, in comparison of the times before the law, from Adam to Moses, and under the law, from thence to Christ; and even in the times of the apostles, at least towards the close of them, great numbers of men rose up under the Christian name, to whom the following characters well agree, as the Gnostics, and others; and who paved the way for the man of sin, the Romish antichrist… so that these last days may take in the general defection and apostasy of the church of Rome, as well as those times, which followed the apostles, and those which will usher in the second coming of Christ.

Matthew Henry: 2 Timothy 3. Even in gospel times there would be perilous times…

Adam Clarke: 2 Timothy 3. In the last days. This often means the days of the Messiah, and is sometimes extended in its signification to the destruction of Jerusalem, as this was properly the last days of the Jewish state. But the phrase may mean any future time, whether near or distant.

Adam Clarke: Matthew 24:34. This generation shall not pass—this race; i.e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled. Some translate this generation, meaning the persons who were then living, that they should not die before these signs, etc., took place: but though this was true, as to the calamities that fell upon the Jews, and the destruction of their government, temple, etc., yet as our Lord mentions Jerusalem’s continuing to be under the power of the Gentiles till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, i.e. till all the nations of the world should receive the Gospel of Christ, after which the Jews themselves should be converted unto God, Romans 11:25, etc…

 

[Michaeneu]

In reference to my expository on Zephaniah 1:7 you wrote.

So "at hand" really meant "at hand". Seems you've defeated your own argument. Not only that you admit "the day of the Lord" occured. The "at hand" event occured 40 years later. Hmmm, makes you think maybe Mark's at hand was of a similar time period:

You’re sidestepping my thesis. Zephaniah announced the immanent “day of the Lord”, which even you had to acknowledge was fulfilled within a generation, and joined it without chronological distinction to distant eschatological events (Zep. 1:2-18; 3:8). Here we have prophetic eschatological intrusion, the prediction of the distant consummation of the Messianic kingdom intruding without any chronological indication into an event that predates it by millenniums. If anyone is slicing and dicing that would be the one that doesn’t address the issue.

And we have the exact idiom used in the OT for a judgment in their time that is used in the NT for one that is future, which advocates the idiom has more than one use as type to an anagogical or eschatological event. And this is exactly the paradigm that Christ used in the Olivet Discourse. He pronounced the immanent judgment in 70 AD and without any chronological distinction jointed it with the distant eschatological consummation of the kingdom. Christ method is nothing more that that of the OT prophets and Preterism fails to grasp this.

As to Isaiah 13, what specifically do you want addressed? And if you can’t grasp the aforementioned you’re hardly going to reveal anything to me about Isaiah 13, but I’m always open to the light; bring it on.

 

[Eric B]

The amount of time between the events is not specified IN the text NOR does the text argue that all the signs happen two seconds apart. Nor would such an assumption be warranted from the text.

Yeah, but then if there is no amount of time specified, then the natural assumption would be that this is a cloely occurring sequence of events. Entire centuries is way too far apart. The same people are not even involved in the events!

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah, but then if there is no amount of time specified, then the natural assumption would be that this is a cloely occurring sequence of events. Entire centuries is way too far apart. The same people are not even involved in the events!

I agree that the time is way long -- but the signs are there all the same.

Here is something to consider -- while I insist that all Bible timeline prophecies must be left "intact" so no slicing an dicing them -- and inserting unknown multi-millennial gaps into prophecy timelines - I do admit that the 1260 years of dark ages persecution is not the only one that is going to come upon the world. That in fact a much shorter one is coming -- a "great" tribulation invovling much higher numbers of saints persecuted and possibly slain - but a much much shorter period of time.

Given that fact - it is entirely possible that "once again" we will see those signs appear immediately following that persecution.

In Rev 7 the four winds of strife and war are withheld until the saints are all sealed. But once the saints are sealed -- it all breaks loose! So while those signs may very well repeat themselves after those events - I believe that it will be too late for the sinner to do anything about it - because the saints will already have been sealed.

As Christ said at the end of Rev 22 there comes a point where He says "Let him who is filthy be filthy still".

This means that even if there is a "repeat" shorter sequence coming -- it will not benefit the lost. It is only the larger sequence I have pointed to that serves as a warning to the lost to accept salvation now - before it is too late. If they wait for that much shorter sequence - they will be merely serving as mourners to their own funeral. Like the wicked world watching the ark of Noah - for those 7 days after the door was shut and the rain had not yet fallen.

Their doom was sealed -- but they did not know it. Signs at that point were of little use to them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

OK, interesting. So it's a multiple fulfillment. IIRC, SDA's taught that the Dark Ages persecution was the Great Tribulation (6th Seal), and that the only thing left to happen in our future was the rise of the last head or horn of the beast and the return of Christ. I imagine they did also say there would be more persecution, especially since Sabbath/Sunday is made to become the issue Christians are supposedly percecuted over (Mark of the Beast).

 

[billwald]

Wonder how the Bible will be interpreted in 4012AD or 40012AD if Jesus doesn't show?

 

[RAdam]

In reference to my expository on Zephaniah 1:7 you wrote.





And we have the exact idiom used in the OT for a judgment in their time that is used in the NT for one that is future, which advocates the idiom has more than one use as type to an anagogical or eschatological event. And this is exactly the paradigm that Christ used in the Olivet Discourse. He pronounced the immanent judgment in 70 AD and without any chronological distinction jointed it with the distant eschatological consummation of the kingdom. Christ method is nothing more that that of the OT prophets and Preterism fails to grasp this.

Exactly right. The prophecy in the NT was written by and in many cases to Jews, thus we shouldn't be surprised by the revelation that the style used was that of the OT prophecy. The failure by many to grasp this has lead to many errors, not the least of which is preterism.

 

[BobRyan]

Wonder how the Bible will be interpreted in 4012AD or 40012AD if Jesus doesn't show?

In Dan 8:14 - the angel of Daniel 8 and 9 tells Daniel that the world has 2300 years from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (see Ezra 7) until what the Angel calls "the time of the end".

That 2300 years was up in the 19th century. So while this does not mean that the 2nd coming "must be tomorrow" it certainly does not allow for any more centuries.

The same is true for the metric of the 6000 years of history of sin - followed by the 1000 year millennial rest for the Earth. "Many more centuries" is not in the Bible plan.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, but that brings us to another point. The SDA's, i believe, ae the ones who led the rigid "6000 year" idea, and add in the typical dates, Creation: 4004BC; Christ= 4BC, then the 6000th year was 1997, which is more then 7 years ago, and neither the beginning of the 7 year tribulation, nor the return of christ has occurred yet. So then, we must begin shifting the dates, so maybe the Creation was after 4004BC. How much more after? Centuries? Now, you're changing your "young earth" to be even younger! The next thing will be, maybe it's not exactly 6000 years. Or eventually, you'll have to go with the 10.000 year theory like most of the rest of the YEC's.
Or just to do 1844 all over again, and say Christ is really doing something in Heaven again.
So if they were so sure, but wrong back then (approaching two centuries ago already), that can happen again, so then the question of what they will be teaching in 4012 does make sense.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint: There are no "SDA" doctrines regarding 4004 BC or 4BC or 1997.

If one reads side comments carefully from Adventist writers in the 19th century you can find statements showing that they believed that from Adam to Christ is about 4000 years - but it is not clear whether that is the birth of Christ, the baptism of Christ or simply that general century. They never said.

As for 1844 - Adventists have never backed away from the Dan 8 point that 1844 started the Day of Atonement phase of the heavenly sanctuary -- in which the Daniel 7 court room scene was begun -- the court sits -- the books are opened (to quote Daniel).

in Christ,

Bob