An Open and Shut Case, Revelation 22 & Daniel 12

[John of Japan]

WRONG. That was my second post, and I was just replying truthfully in the same manner to the post I was answering.

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

 

[robycop3]

The following post was first on the Jerusalem thread in the Political forum. Seeing that it went unanswered (and that the subject matter fits better here) I thought it best to repeat it in this forum. Lest somehow this is considered a "zombie" thread I am also adding to this. I really do want answers to this.

The "soon", "the time is at hand", and "shortly" references in Revelation are often dismissed by futurists as "soon in God's time", that is "a day is as a thousand years". But this is to miss the point both of the Peter verse and the soon passages in Revelation.

The point in Peter is that God is faithful in all His promises, whether is scheduled to happen the next day or in a thousand years. The point is not that God uses a special meaning for "soon".

But another interesting avenue to underscore that the events in Revelation truly were to happen soon after the book was written is to compare Daniel 12:9, 13 with Rev. 22:10.

Dan. 12:9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

v. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

Rev. 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Do you see the contrast? In Daniel the time is far off. So the words are shut and sealed.

But in Revelation the time is short. So the words are not sealed up. They require immediate attention.

Now, according to the futurist interpretation, both Daniel and Revelation speak of the so-called future endtimes. How is this possible, seeing one is spoken of as "far off" and the other "near"?

Probably 19 out of 20 Bible students, faced with this puzzler - if they even understand why it is a great incongruity - will go first to their commentary or favorite author, rather than search the Word.

It is hard to go against tradition, the majority, and (in most of our experiences) the factory setting we were given when we first went to church, but it behooves us always to see if our beliefs square with Scripture. If, in the time of Christ on Earth, there were traditions that made "the Word of God of no effect" is it a stretch that the same canker would not be at work today?

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

 

[John of Japan]

Don't be ridiculous.

No one I have seen takes an allegorical stance. There may be some but I have not noticed. Symbolic is not allegorical. It takes symbols given throughout scripture a number of which are interpreted in the scripture concerned and apply them to the same symbols in other parts of scripture. No guesswork, just study.

Allegorical is another thing altogether, Same as spiritual. That is it has no prphetical meaning, just applies to spiritual truths.

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.

If you take the reading of revelation literally, then you are ignoring what is said in the opening verse, that it was Signified, that means it is told by signs or figures, to use another word used in scripture, or symbols as we say today. All mean the same and are consistent with scripture. Remember that Jesus' parables were spoken in figure.

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." )

 

[agedman]

No they didn't hold to anything like futurism. The things were future to them like the fall of the Roman Empire and the Emperor, which they said were the let and hindrance of " Thess 2, after which they said Rome would split into 10 kingdoms, then the Antichrist would come, All of which had happened.

It was future to them but history to us, but you cannot get away from the fact that it was taught by the Jesuits from the 16th century to counter the reformation (and pre-reformation) teaching that the pope is antichrist, This remained a Catholic teaching till it was taught by Edward Irving in 1825. Irving held annual prophetic conferences at Albury in London where these ideas were adopted. One of those attending was Lady Powerscourt, who then ran similar prophetic conferences in Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those attending were Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby which is how the teaching became a Plymouth Brethren doctrine. This is strange that Calisists like Darby and Irving should adopt a Jesuit teaching. This was because he came across a book by a Jesuit, Lacunza, The coming of the Christ in Power and Majesty, Irving translated this book from Spanish, and was taken buy it, presumably because it was written under a false name, Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, also to confuse protestants, it was put on their banned list of books. A great deception/

Dispensational Futurism was taught mainly by the Plymouth Brethren in England until it went to America, at the turn of the 20th century, Then it came back to England and caught on here, I believe, but I have not heard it preached by any church since I left the Brethren, but some of our members who were ex Brethren believed it. An one preach that came to our church a few years ago preached it, And I have a friend who was a pentecostal who believes it , but he was saved in the Brethren. What other churches in our town believe, I don't know, as we are the only church that is not in Churches Together. I don't know of one church that has Pretribulation Rapture in their statement of faith. The first time I came across that was when we went to Luxembourg, and that was an American Church, SB I believe.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[agedman]

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.

 

[David Kent]

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

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

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

"John of Japan,

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

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,

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

"John of Japan,

So you see the growing Church as a literal fulfillment here;

Are you asking me or telling me??

 

[asterisktom]

Thanks Bro Tom.

I agree that the futurist teaching is absolutely wrong.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

My understanding is that The things thou has seen are the opening vision, the things which are refer to the seven churches, and the things which all be hereafter, the account of the church from that time till Christ comes again and the judgement. Although some say that the things which shall be hereafter also applies to the 7 Churches, making it a dual prophecy. I would understand that.

Thank you, David. I have also enjoyed reading your posts. I am sure you know that we disagree on some points but I appreciate the way you come across on these forums.

 

[asterisktom]

Philip died in about 80 AD. Tomb of St. Philip the Apostle Discovered in Turkey

John died in about 98 AD. Tombs of the Apostles

The preterist "Parousia," happened in 70 AD and left Philip and John behind.

That makes wonderful sense.

Let's just say that it makes wonderfuller sense to get our theology from the Bible and not Fox news and the History Channel. IOW your dates are highly dubious.

 

[asterisktom]

PS For the record, the time statements in Rev. don't bother me at all.

Yes, I am clear on that. Ignoring them makes things much more breezy for you, and you can keep your eschatology intact.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I am clear on that. Ignoring them makes things much more breezy for you, and you can keep your eschatology intact.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

Interestingly enough, the word "soon" does not appear in the book of Rev. in the KJV with the meaning of a time statement about future events, as asterisktom thinks. It occurs only twice, in "as soon as," meaning "when."

Oh, what a stretch! Once again you are letting your own personal beliefs determined what the Bible says. Must we limit our study to the KJV (Are you KJV only or something?)

"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," NIV

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," ESV

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," NASB

Your comment above, John, smacks of desperation.

Any unbiased Bible student - provided one of you guys did not get to him/her first - would understand Rev. 1:1. is speaking of an imminent vent.

 

[agedman]

Let's just say that it makes wonderfuller sense to get our theology from the Bible and not Fox news and the History Channel. IOW your dates are highly dubious.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh, what a stretch! Once again you are letting your own personal beliefs determined what the Bible says. Must we limit our study to the KJV (Are you KJV only or something?)

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

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," NIV

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," ESV

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," NASB

Point taken.

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

Your comment above, John, smacks of desperation.

Any unbiased Bible student - provided one of you guys did not get to him/her first -

Two more belittling accusations. Ho, hum.

would understand Rev. 1:1. is speaking of an imminent vent.

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. )

 

[agedman]

Oh, what a stretch! Once again you are letting your own personal beliefs determined what the Bible says. Must we limit our study to the KJV (Are you KJV only or something?)

"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," NIV

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," ESV

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," NASB

Your comment above, John, smacks of desperation.

Any unbiased Bible student - provided one of you guys did not get to him/her first - would understand Rev. 1:1. is speaking of an imminent vent.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Once again, John, your hermeneutics are agenda-driven. This is like the fourth time in recent weeks. Your hatred toward preterism (I believe you used that very word) does not seem to allow you to objectively weigh the evidence in Scripture. We saw it in your unbothered reaction to the many and clear time statements. We see it here in your myopic stance on the spiritual or allegorical aspects of Scripture. (And, no, they are not strictly synonyms.)

Gal. 4:22-26
"22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

Since you prefer the KJV:

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."

And the Greek I am sure you know"

"ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ, " Nestle

Did the inspired Apostle Paul also get this spiritualiizing/allegorical approach from Philo?

 

[agedman]

Once again, John, your hermeneutics are agenda-driven. This is like the fourth time in recent weeks. Your hatred toward preterism (I believe you used that very word) does not seem to allow you to objectively weigh the evidence in Scripture. We saw it in your unbothered reaction to the many and clear time statements. We see it here in your myopic stance on the spiritual or allegorical aspects of Scripture. (And, no, they are not strictly synonyms.)

Gal. 4:22-26
"22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

Since you prefer the KJV:

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."

And the Greek I am sure you know"

"ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ, " Nestle

Did the inspired Apostle Paul also get this spiritualiizing/allegorical approach from Philo?

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.