Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

[Covenanter]

I'm trying to figure out how you got "applied to man on account of his power or command" but I cannot find that on Blue Letter Bible or in Strong's (which I almost never use because it is so out of date). Would you care to tell me how to find this definition?

I don't see how Strong's numbering system can become out of date.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

But, I digress. Here is a link to the Blue Letter Bible entry that I looked up. Genesis 1:1 (NASB)
I used item "B", 2nd entry. Based on your comment, I may need to switch to the lexicon you are using. Take care.

Apology accepted

Here is one problem. As you know, Gen. was written in Hebrew. There is never a one to one equivalence between a word in two languages. The Hebrew word for "image" is not a match for the Greek words used in the NT for "image."

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

Here is the second problem. You did not quote from a definition of "image," but from what the BLB calls an "Outline of Biblical Usage." So, what you are using as a source is some anonymous person's opinion of the usage, not a definition of either the Greek or Hebrew words.

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.

 

[Lodic]

Two Simple questions:

1. In Romans 9:7-11 what kind of Israel is Paul speaking about? What kind of Israel has fallen/broken off/cast away and rejected by God?

2. Is not it the same kind of Israel broken off that is grafted back in "again"? If not, then please explain how "spiritual" Israel was broken off and grafted back in again?

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.

 

[Lodic]

The "cattle on 1000 hills" is clearly hyperbole, mentioned only one time. The "day as a 1000 years" is clearly theology and therefore literal: God as existing outside of the space time continuum, not limited by days or years. One day with God is just as clearly seen as 1000 years--that's great theology by Peter!

On the other hand, the Rev. 20 passage mentions "1000 years" six whole times in just 7 verses! How in the world is that symbolic? Who does that, mentions the same symbol six times with different emphases? It can't be hyperbole or metaphor or simile or idiom or any other figure of speech that I know of. Tell me please, what figure of speech is the 1000 years of Rev. 20?

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

But he was discussing Genesis.

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.

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.

 

[Lodic]

The DIFFERENCE is, I've pointed out FACTS, not opinion, imagination, & guesswork. Anyone can check after me in what I've provided to see it's the TRUTH. A clear example of this are the facts about Nero. His life is extensively chronicled, espacially after he became Caesar, and those facts clearly show he could NOT have been the "beast". However, you still insist that he was, with no evidence at all to support that claim. The TRUE beast MUST fulfill ALL Scriptural criteria for the beast, simple as THAT. So, if you REALLY believe Scripture is 100% true, you MUST drop the idea that Nero was the beast!

Daniel wrote what the "abomination of desolation" will be - the 'beast' entering the temple & proclaiming himself to be God. And no such event occurred while the old temple stood.

Indeed, you're practicing another pret trait of changing the meaning of certain Scriptures. For instance, Jesus says they will see Himself coming in the sky, you say, "See doesn't necessarily mean 'View'." reminds me of Bill Clinton's "That depends upon what 'is' is." Sorry; THAT WON'T WORK!

TRUTH IS, YOU'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT THE FALSE 'PRETERISM' DOCTRINE WITH HOT AIR.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

I've always understood the "day as a 1,000 years" to be an illustration of God's perspective.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Lodic]

Can you use Scripture to re-define "image" in Rev. 13 to mean anything but "statue" or "picture"?

No sir, I cannot.

 

[37818]

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I think both may be implicit at best.

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.

 

[Lodic]

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?

 

[robycop3]

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 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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Yes, ETHNIC Israel as a nation

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.

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.

 

[robycop3]

No sir, I cannot.

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.)

 

[The Biblicist]

What REALLY astounds me is that the Pret gent trying to defend preterism here has gone so far as to distort Matt. 24:29-30, which are direct quotes from JESUS HIMSELF. When Jesus said "They shall SEE the Son of man coming..." I don't get how anyone could "take" that statement at anything but face value, that they will view, behold, scope out, perceive with the eye, etc. Jesus coming, especially when those verses are coupled with Rev. 1:7! The man's been quite polite, so I hate to hafta resort to using the "A" word or the "H" word in mentioning that "take" he's posted. But I certainly find it completely unacceptable!

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

 

[Lodic]

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.

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.

 

[David Kent]

First, there is no indication from any text within the book of Revelation that the church is symbolized as an olive tree. Even Romans 11 makes no such clearly stated comparison or direct application of that idea.

No but it says the candlesticks are churches, Seven in the beginning but in the dark ages when the church being reduced to the lowest number to be allowed in scripture two or three witnesses. Witnessing churches ruduced in number but still witnessing, fed by the oil of the spirit.

The same text that provides interpretation for the lambstand provides interpretation for the stars (messengers). Unless you believe John sent his letter by airmail, then these seven messengers are the pastors of the seven church as each are addressed in connection with each congregation. The pastor is designed to be a messenger boy. He is supposed to get his message from the Lord and convey it to the congregation.

Yes I agree with that. The stars are the messengers and unless you are a believer in guardian angels, and I am not, they must be the pastors of the churches. I also agree that the symbolism is carried forward from the Old Testament.

• Genesis 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
• 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
• 11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.

When we take these figures or signs in Revelation, we are not just making them up we use signs which are previously given in scripture. Henry Grattan Guiness bases his understanding of Revelation based on seven divinely interpreted visions, in History Unveiling Prophecy, and Key to the Apocalypse. Someone else wrote a book with the same title as the latter, but I can't remember who.

Returning to stars,

• Judges 5:19 The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money.
• 20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

So how did the stars fight against Sisera?

• Daniel 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
• 10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

Who was the little thorn hat came from the Greek kindom, the horn that jumped into the air, cast down some of the host of heaven and the stars to the ground and trampled on them? I believe itr was Antiochus Epiphanes.

 

[The Biblicist]

No but it says the candlesticks are churches,

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.

Who was the little thorn hat came from the Greek kindom, the horn that jumped into the air, cast down some of the host of heaven and the stars to the ground and trampled on them? I believe itr was Antiochus Epiphanes.

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.

 

[David Kent]

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.

Antiochus was the little horn that came from the Greek kingdoms,

Antichrist was the little horn that came from the ten horns, the ten nations that Rome split into when the Gothic kingdom replaced the Empire. That was fulfilled by the papal antichrist.

• Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
• 8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Th popes have eyes which overlook their kindom which is called The Holy See. Each of his bifops have their own See,
He also has a mouth which speaks great things. Does not the press and TV of the whole world report the "great things" he proclaims from Rome.

• 20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
• 21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

He made war with the saints and prvailed against them. Who has made war with the saints and prevailed against them more than the papacy.

• 24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
• 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The ten kindoms that came fom Rome happened when the last Roman Emperor resigned and handed his kingdon to the Gothic kings. The papacy is diverse from all the previous kings, in that his kingdom is not only temperal but also spiritual. He also wears a triple crown signifying (symbolising) his claim to rule over heaven, earth and hell. What other ruler has claimed that?

Again he speaks great words against the Most High, He has changed laws and wears out the saints of the most high. He thainks to change times and seasons. Our calendar is called the Gregorian named after the pope that introduced it.

 

[David Kent]

Daniel 11 says he will SET UP the AOD in the temple,

No it doesn't.

• Daniel 11:31 and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Not a "he" but "they" They, the Romans would place the AOD. Luke tells us that was the armies surropunding Jerusalem. They were the ones that made Jerusalem desolate.

• Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

No where does it mention antchrist.

All fulfilled.