We take "soon" the way that John meant it, meaning there are no intervening events. So we do take it literal. You just misunderstand the word.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dating Revelation
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
O.K. So "soon" means anytime within the next couple of millenia, but in a jiffy when it does happen. (That must be the way my son uses the term.)Can we apply the same reasoning to other time-sensitive words in the N.T.? Like "at hand", or "quickly"?, Is this the "normal" reading of these words?
On another note, the lunar eclipse last night reminded me of a another example of where some of us take one part of a phrase literally, and some take the other:
"the moon turned to blood"
Few people (that I know of) say both moon AND blood are literal.
Dispensationalists typically say "moon" is the literal term, and "blood" is figurative--meaning red.
Many of another persuation say "moon" is the figurative term--meaning Israel, but the "blood" is literal.
So which one is MORE literal?
In Christ,
Tim
On another note, the lunar eclipse last night reminded me of a another example of where some of us take one part of a phrase literally, and some take the other:
"the moon turned to blood"
Few people (that I know of) say both moon AND blood are literal.
Dispensationalists typically say "moon" is the literal term, and "blood" is figurative--meaning red.
Many of another persuation say "moon" is the figurative term--meaning Israel, but the "blood" is literal.
So which one is MORE literal?
In Christ,
Tim
It can be. Remember, meaning depends on context.
"Literal" is not the preferred word. "Normal" is. The moon is likely literal and the "blood" describes its color, as in last night apparently. We had some beautiful clouds so who knows. The point is that the moon turning to blood describes the color of it. No problem here.
It can be. Remember, meaning depends on context.
Can you share with me any other usages of these words that mean long periods of time?
Phil.2
19I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you.
Rev 1: 1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
What does "soon" mean here?
Matthew 28
7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
Now Rev 22 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
What does quickly mean?
Can you share with me any other usages of these words that mean long periods of time?
Phil.2
19I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you.
Rev 1: 1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
What does "soon" mean here?
Matthew 28
7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
Now Rev 22 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
What does quickly mean?
Quoting from Tim:
Rev. 6:12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; (ASV)
Rev. 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red , (NIV)
Rev. 6:12 12. |2532| And |1492| I saw |3753| when |0455| he opened |3588| the |4973| seal |1622| sixth, |2532| and |2400| look, |4578| an earthquake |3173| great |1096| occurred, |2532| and |3588| the |2246| sun |1096| became |3189| black |5613| like |4526| sackcloth |5155| made of hair, |2532| and |3588| the |4582| moon |1096| became |5613| like |0129| blood, (Literal Bible with Strongs #s)
emphasis mine
This verse does not say the moon turned to blood - but the the moon became as blood or blood red - even Strongs uses the word like.
Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; (KJV)
Rev. 6:12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; (ASV)
Rev. 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red , (NIV)
Rev. 6:12 12. |2532| And |1492| I saw |3753| when |0455| he opened |3588| the |4973| seal |1622| sixth, |2532| and |2400| look, |4578| an earthquake |3173| great |1096| occurred, |2532| and |3588| the |2246| sun |1096| became |3189| black |5613| like |4526| sackcloth |5155| made of hair, |2532| and |3588| the |4582| moon |1096| became |5613| like |0129| blood, (Literal Bible with Strongs #s)
emphasis mine
This verse does not say the moon turned to blood - but the the moon became as blood or blood red - even Strongs uses the word like.
Dan,
Sorry, I got off Revelation there with the moon & blood comments. But Joel does say, "the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (2:31) and Peter quotes it in Acts 2:19,20, saying that Joel's prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled. No "like" or "as" there. And all of this would happen in the days when "whosoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"--days that thankfully have already come (Rom. 10:13).
In Christ,
Tim
Sorry, I got off Revelation there with the moon & blood comments. But Joel does say, "the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (2:31) and Peter quotes it in Acts 2:19,20, saying that Joel's prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled. No "like" or "as" there. And all of this would happen in the days when "whosoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"--days that thankfully have already come (Rom. 10:13).
In Christ,
Tim
Tim,
I believe that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. If there are contradictions - when we might as well toss it all away - and go with the philosophy - "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
When I study passages of Scripture like Joel 2:31; Acts 2:19,20 and Rev. 6:12 - I can come to two conclusions:
1. Joel 2:31 and Acts 2:19,20 are not about the same events as Rev. 6:12;
2. Or Rev. 6:12 is God's commentary (further amplification) of the other two verses. (My preference)
Quote from MacArthur Study Bible - Introduction to Joel:
"A second issue confronting the interpreter is Peter's quotation from Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21. Some have viewed the phenomena of Acts 2 and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of the Joel passage, while others have reserved its fulfillment to the final Day of the Lord only -- but clearly Joel is referring to the final terrible Day of the Lord. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost not a fulfillment, but a preview and sample of the Spirit's power and work, to be released fully and finally in the Messiah's kingdom after the Day of the Lord. See note on Acts 2:16-21"
MacArthur - Acts 2:16-21:
"See Introduction to Joel: Interpretive Challenges; see note on Joel 2:28-32. Joel's prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial kingdom and the final judgment. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the millennial kingdom when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh."
MacArthur - Joel 2:28-32:
" 2:28 afterward. The abundance of material blesings would be followed by the outpouring of spiritual blessings. When coupled with the other temporal phrases within the passage ('in those days'[v.29] and 'before the coming of the great and awesome Day of the Lord' [v.31]), the term points to a Second Advent fulfillment time frame. all flesh. Since the context is 'your sons and your daughters,' 'all flesh' best refers to the house of Israel only. The nations are recipients of God's wrath, not the effusion of His Spirit (cf.3:2,9ff)."
"2:30,31 Before...day of the Lord. Unmistakable heavenly phenomena will signal the imminent arrival of God's wrath in the Day of the Lord (cf.v.10)."
"2:32 whoever calls. Quoted by Paul in Rom. 10:13. remnant. In spite of the nation's sin, God promised to fulfill His unconditional covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and New). A future remnant of Jews will inherit God's promised blessings (cf.Is. 10:20-22; 11:11,16; Jer. 31:7; Mic 2:12; Zeph 3:13; Rom. 9:27)."
I believe that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. If there are contradictions - when we might as well toss it all away - and go with the philosophy - "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
When I study passages of Scripture like Joel 2:31; Acts 2:19,20 and Rev. 6:12 - I can come to two conclusions:
1. Joel 2:31 and Acts 2:19,20 are not about the same events as Rev. 6:12;
2. Or Rev. 6:12 is God's commentary (further amplification) of the other two verses. (My preference)
Quote from MacArthur Study Bible - Introduction to Joel:
"A second issue confronting the interpreter is Peter's quotation from Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21. Some have viewed the phenomena of Acts 2 and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of the Joel passage, while others have reserved its fulfillment to the final Day of the Lord only -- but clearly Joel is referring to the final terrible Day of the Lord. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost not a fulfillment, but a preview and sample of the Spirit's power and work, to be released fully and finally in the Messiah's kingdom after the Day of the Lord. See note on Acts 2:16-21"
MacArthur - Acts 2:16-21:
"See Introduction to Joel: Interpretive Challenges; see note on Joel 2:28-32. Joel's prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial kingdom and the final judgment. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the millennial kingdom when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh."
MacArthur - Joel 2:28-32:
" 2:28 afterward. The abundance of material blesings would be followed by the outpouring of spiritual blessings. When coupled with the other temporal phrases within the passage ('in those days'[v.29] and 'before the coming of the great and awesome Day of the Lord' [v.31]), the term points to a Second Advent fulfillment time frame. all flesh. Since the context is 'your sons and your daughters,' 'all flesh' best refers to the house of Israel only. The nations are recipients of God's wrath, not the effusion of His Spirit (cf.3:2,9ff)."
"2:30,31 Before...day of the Lord. Unmistakable heavenly phenomena will signal the imminent arrival of God's wrath in the Day of the Lord (cf.v.10)."
"2:32 whoever calls. Quoted by Paul in Rom. 10:13. remnant. In spite of the nation's sin, God promised to fulfill His unconditional covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and New). A future remnant of Jews will inherit God's promised blessings (cf.Is. 10:20-22; 11:11,16; Jer. 31:7; Mic 2:12; Zeph 3:13; Rom. 9:27)."
I didn't say that it meant long periods of time. Read again. I said that it meant without intervening events, which it does.
It means most likely without delay, though I haven't studied it through in Phil. I have in Revelation.
You guys keep harping on this like it is a problem and I can say with no fear of contradiction that it is not. The word means what it does and if you get our your lexicons and commentaries, you will see that there is a wide base of support for it. To defeat pretribulationism, you will have to do more than this.
Pastor Larry,
When you say "without intervening events", I suppose you mean events which God prophesied would happen. But the problem with that idea is that God DID prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem. Regardless of your dating of Revelation, several other N.T. books undoubtedly were written BEFORE Jerusalem's destruction which make mention of a soon coming or appearance of Christ. So "soon" could not mean there were "no intervening events" in those references. Jerusalem still needed to be destroyed, according to prophecy. So what COULD "soon" mean in those references? I know it's a long shot, but maybe it really meant soon.
You can't simply dismiss these time-indicators, they keep popping up in so many N.T. references.
In Christ,
Tim
When you say "without intervening events", I suppose you mean events which God prophesied would happen. But the problem with that idea is that God DID prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem. Regardless of your dating of Revelation, several other N.T. books undoubtedly were written BEFORE Jerusalem's destruction which make mention of a soon coming or appearance of Christ. So "soon" could not mean there were "no intervening events" in those references. Jerusalem still needed to be destroyed, according to prophecy. So what COULD "soon" mean in those references? I know it's a long shot, but maybe it really meant soon.
You can't simply dismiss these time-indicators, they keep popping up in so many N.T. references.
In Christ,
Tim
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Nobody is dismissing anything atleast not from our part. As I have said before it saddens me to see those who refuse to accept the word of God. I have noticed that some of the same people have spread their brand of false teaching in other forums but it isn't playing here. Jesus is coming soon and that is good enough for me.
Murph
You are the only one dismissing anything here. I have not dismissed anything. I have taken all of that into account. It is not an issue. It has been soundly and solidly answered.
So to sum it up, "soon", "quickly", "near", and "at hand" mean nothing. But the gap in Daniel 9 is very clear to anyone thats not a False Teacher.
Seriously, how do you work this out?
If any references to a soon coming of Christ actually mean that "no intervening events" must take place before He returns, i.e. no further prophecies to fulfill.
And if the scriptures prophesy of Jerusalem's destruction.
Then any references to a soon coming of Christ must have been written AFTER Jerusalem's destruction. Otherwise there's "an intervening event" in between, i.e. Jerusalem's destruction as prophesied.
If so, for example, Hebrews 10:37, and James 5:8, among other scriptures, MUST have been written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. So you actually need to propose a later date for many books of the N.T., not just Revelation, in order to hold to your stated definition of time-references like "soon", etc.
So, do you withdraw that definition? If not, how do you solve the dilemna above? I really would like to know, and I'm patient.
In Christ,
Tim
P.S. Murph, I'm a partial-preterist, so I agree that the Lord will return to judge the whole earth one day. But the "soon" coming in judgment referred to in the N.T.?-- Israel had it in the first century. Soon after it was prophesied.
If any references to a soon coming of Christ actually mean that "no intervening events" must take place before He returns, i.e. no further prophecies to fulfill.
And if the scriptures prophesy of Jerusalem's destruction.
Then any references to a soon coming of Christ must have been written AFTER Jerusalem's destruction. Otherwise there's "an intervening event" in between, i.e. Jerusalem's destruction as prophesied.
If so, for example, Hebrews 10:37, and James 5:8, among other scriptures, MUST have been written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. So you actually need to propose a later date for many books of the N.T., not just Revelation, in order to hold to your stated definition of time-references like "soon", etc.
So, do you withdraw that definition? If not, how do you solve the dilemna above? I really would like to know, and I'm patient.
In Christ,
Tim
P.S. Murph, I'm a partial-preterist, so I agree that the Lord will return to judge the whole earth one day. But the "soon" coming in judgment referred to in the N.T.?-- Israel had it in the first century. Soon after it was prophesied.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Tim you are wrong, now I am sure that I will not convince you of that but I will pray for you.
Murph
The simplest and most obvious answer is that the rapture did not require the destruction of Jerusalem.
I don't think there is a problem, though He said "soon" the Lord has delayed His coming (which is His perogative)...
Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
The delay appears to be a test of the servants and their attitude towards one another.
Just a thought.
HankD
Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
The delay appears to be a test of the servants and their attitude towards one another.
Just a thought.
HankD
Pastor Larry,
If, as you say, the "rapture" did not first require the destruction of Jerusalem, then it logically follows that some prophecies need not be fulfilled.
Why? Because you said that "soon" meant without any "intervening events". Is not the fulfilling of a previously stated prophecy an intervening event which had to take place?
To simplify it as a logic problem:
Prophecy A: Jerusalem will be destroyed
Prophecy B: The "rapture" could happen at any time with no need for any further prophecies to be fulfilled.
Conclusion: Until Jerusalem was destroyed, Prophecy A still needed to be fulfilled, so Prophecy B had to be written AFTER Prophecy A was fulfilled.
The only way out of this logical problem is to find yet another definition for "soon". It cannot mean "with no intervening events" if you apply it as you did unless all N.T. books with references such as those cited above in Hebrews and James were written after 70 AD.
You're dismissive statements do not solve the logical dilemna.
In Christ,
Tim
P.S. Murph, I appreciate your prayers as long as they're not imprecatory!
If, as you say, the "rapture" did not first require the destruction of Jerusalem, then it logically follows that some prophecies need not be fulfilled.
Why? Because you said that "soon" meant without any "intervening events". Is not the fulfilling of a previously stated prophecy an intervening event which had to take place?
To simplify it as a logic problem:
Prophecy A: Jerusalem will be destroyed
Prophecy B: The "rapture" could happen at any time with no need for any further prophecies to be fulfilled.
Conclusion: Until Jerusalem was destroyed, Prophecy A still needed to be fulfilled, so Prophecy B had to be written AFTER Prophecy A was fulfilled.
The only way out of this logical problem is to find yet another definition for "soon". It cannot mean "with no intervening events" if you apply it as you did unless all N.T. books with references such as those cited above in Hebrews and James were written after 70 AD.
You're dismissive statements do not solve the logical dilemna.
In Christ,
Tim
P.S. Murph, I appreciate your prayers as long as they're not imprecatory!