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!
We still love him/herHank.
You just pinpointed Grasshopper's problem with prophesy interpretation. He/she will not accept a dual or partially fulfilled prophesy.
Doesn’t plain, literal sense mean you would take “swords” and “bows” literally in Is 13?Uh-huh, don't go there please. Let me give you the rules I and others follow for interpreting Bible prophecy. Ready?
The words of Bible prophecy are taken in their plain, literal sense unless the text or context gives compelling evidence that the language is figurative.
No joke. This is my point. But it seems as if only dispies such as you, Jack and Hank are allowed to determine which verses fall into which category. Preterist are not allowed this privilege.Also, figurative language is used in prophecy to teach literal truth.
So then you are saying Is. 13 was not fulfilled when the Medes destroyed Babylon and in fact was just a huge coincidence.Grasshopper.
As I have already proved from historic records, the Medes did conquor Babylon, but not in the manner stated in the Isa. 13 prophesy that is one of mercyless killing and destruction. Neither Darius or Cyrus had that done to Babylon. This is a historic fact.
Are you now saying it might have been? If so, then verse 10 was also fulfilled.And even if the prophesy was fully done in 539 BC,
No one is saying otherwise.that does not preclude a final Great Tribulation in the world.
What about it? It is a different Babylon.And what about the prophesy of Babylon's destruction in Revelation 18?
The Babylon of Revelation was Jerusalem with its perverted form of Old Covenant Judaism.And what about spiritual Babylon in chapter 17? When was this mystery religion ended in the first century as you suppose, and what religion was it?
On the destruction of Jerusalem?Do you have any documentation from the Early Church Fathers on this event?
Been there, done that. If I had a picture of the man with 666 on his forehead you wouldn’t believe it. So why am I going to do your work for you?And before you say that I don't answer your question, you might give us documention of the concensous from those same writers on just who the "revealed" man os sin was from Thessalonians.
So while the Iranians are dropping nuclear bombs on Babylon, God is destroying the rest of the “world”. I showed you from Strong’s what the word world means. But since you don’t believe me, look up the word “world” as used in this verse, and see the definitions for yourself.And if you read Isa. 13:6 and 11-12 you will see that it is God that destroys in the world, not the Iranians. They are said to only attack Babylon.
John GillLook if you will at Isa. 14:`14-15. That prophesy is given as well with Babylon. Can you say that that has happened to Satan before 500 BC?
According to the distinctive of Soul Liberty you and every human being has the right to interpret Scripture as you please, searching the Scriptures to see if certain things be so.No joke. This is my point. But it seems as if only dispies such as you, Jack and Hank are allowed to determine which verses fall into which category. Preterist are not allowed this privilege.
Moses Stuart wrote a book entitled, “Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy” you might find interesting.Having said that my own point of view is that the NT Scripture itself teaches the principle of at least dual (near-far) fulfillment of certain Scripture or certain prophecy.
Very good, but do you not understand how someone like me would come to the conclusion that the “end times” and “last days” were a first century occurrence based on scripture and scripture alone?But for the sake of the debate I will say that I have dispensational leanings and believe that Israel will be revived (in belief) as the head of the nations and restored to the Land “HaEretz” in the End Times of the Last Days for the duration of the Millennium.
Excellent. This is what I have tried to get across to those who insist on literalism. Yet it seems everytime one of these examples is brought up, the charge of “spiritualizing” or “not taking the Bible literally” comes from someone in the dispie camp.Also OT Scripture/prophecy very often contains metaphors, similes, colloquialisms and figures of speech whose nuances perhaps may have been lost to the 21st century reader.
So if Is. 13 had a near fulfillment in the destruction of Babylon 2500 years ago then that means Is.13:10 had a near fulfillment as well.Having said all that, my view of Isaiah 13 is that it has both a near-far and selective fulfillment at the time of the writing both as to the post Babylonian captivity and the impending destruction of that Babylon and the far reaching destruction of MYSTERY BABYLON of the Revelation.
Very true. Too bad we can’t discuss it without being labeled as a heretic.The problem for any of us no matter what our position, is sorting it all out (which is evident by the many views and heated debates here at the BB).
If that is true, then why does the same religion still exist today over 1,900 years after you say "it is fallen" (18:2)? And exactly how does verse 18 of chapter 17 apply to 1st century Jerusalem? And who exactly are these 10 Jewish kings that gave power to the Beast? You know, the Beast that Revelation states "Who could make war with the Beast" (13:4).The Babylon of Revelation (17) was Jerusalem with its perverted form of Old Covenant Judaism.
Why dual? Please remember I said “certain” Scripture/prophecy.If dual-fulfillment is applicable to prophecies then which ones and why only dual? Why not multiple fulfillments? It seems if dual-fulfillment is a legitimate interpretation technique, then only inspired NT writers could tell us which ones are.
OK but why then did the inspired writer say that they were fulfillments?This is why I would reject the “dual-fulfillment” theory except in cases where inspired writers reveal it to us. The examples you gave would fit this category, though I am still not sure when they were given they were intended to have two fulfillments.
OK, but I am not one of those “dispies”. There is room for both and allegory as well IMO.Excellent. This is what I have tried to get across to those who insist on literalism. Yet it seems everytime one of these examples is brought up, the charge of “spiritualizing” or “not taking the Bible literally” comes from someone in the dispie camp.
Probably not or it was a local thing. I said Isaiah 13 and I meant it “as a whole”. I gave you examples from the OT in which the NT fulfillment centered in on 1 or two verses of the near fulfillment. I also said that the far reaching fulfillment may be selective as in the examples I gave.So if Is. 13 had a near fulfillment in the destruction of Babylon 2500 years ago then that means Is.13:10 had a near fulfillment as well.
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Yes, I agree it is a mix but Joel 2 is another case and each must be individually analyzed. Why assume it must be the same?Would you not agree that this is an example of prophecy contained in metaphoric/figure of speech language? If so then why should we assume Joel 2 is any different:
The interpretation of prophecy (or Scripture in general but particularly prophecy) is an ancient problem.If it then indeed is metaphoric language, then there is no problem in allowing it to be a 1st century fulfillment, especially considering the fact that all the other verses in the prophecy did find fulfillment in the 1st century.
Yes but don't feel alone, there is one individual (he hasn't been around for a while), who gives his view and then spends several posts lambasting us and letting us know how ignorant and deceived by satan we are.Very true. Too bad we can’t discuss it without being labeled as a heretic.
I think there's a difference. When a preterist looks at Isaiah 13, they assume based on historical record that it was fulfilled and then look at how it was fulfilled in order to determine what was literal and what was allegory or perhaps an evocative description of the spiritual reality "behind the veil". Because history does not record that the luminaries were darkened, verse 10 seems to not be literal. The same goes for Joel 2:28ff: most of the verses are fulfilled literally at Pentecost and the time shortly afterward, but the similar imagery of the heavens does not seem to have been literally fulfilled. So, with a pattern established of the luminaries being used in prophecy to heighten the spiritual import of an event, the same is applied to Revelation.Originally posted by HankD:
You have a similar problem IMO because everything that doesn’t appear to fit the near view you need to allegorize or spiritualize.
I think there's a difference. When a preterist looks at Isaiah 13, they assume based on historical record that it was fulfilled and then look at how it was fulfilled in order to determine what was literal and what was allegory or perhaps an evocative description of the spiritual reality "behind the veil". Because history does not record that the luminaries were darkened, verse 10 seems to not be literal. The same goes for Joel 2:28ff: most of the verses are fulfilled literally at Pentecost and the time shortly afterward, but the similar imagery of the heavens does not seem to have been literally fulfilled. So, with a pattern established of the luminaries being used in prophecy to heighten the spiritual import of an event, the same is applied to Revelation.Originally posted by Mercury:
I'm sympathetic to the preterist interpretation though not completely convinced by it (perhaps just because I haven't studied this area enough). I usually don't get into these topics, but I've enjoyed reading Grasshopper and Hank's discussion and wanted to comment on one thing:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:
You have a similar problem IMO because everything that doesn’t appear to fit the near view you need to allegorize or spiritualize.
Yes, but who decides which ones? You have yours and others have theirs. How can you allow for dual fulfillments yet deny someone else who wishes to say Messianic prophecies have dual or even multiple fulfillments?Why dual? Please remember I said “certain” Scripture/prophecy.
I’m not saying you are wrong on this point. This is a subject I’m still looking into. However If those verses do have a dual fulfillment ,in the narrow sense and not broad sense, then it seems we should only allow those verse to which inspired writers say have dual fulfillments. To go outside the inspired writers is a very slippery slope that can lead to almost any doctrine one wants to push.OK but why then did the inspired writer say that they were fulfillments?
How could the events of Is. 13:10 be a local event?quote:
So if Is. 13 had a near fulfillment in the destruction of Babylon 2500 years ago then that means Is.13:10 had a near fulfillment as well.
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Probably not or it was a local thing.
Perhaps you can point out which verses in Is 13 were fulfilled in the “near”, and tell me which were not fulfilled and are for the “far”. It seems a stretch to take anything out of Is 13 and say it was not fulfilled in the events of 2500 years ago.I gave you examples from the OT in which the NT fulfillment centered in on 1 or two verses of the near fulfillment. I also said that the far reaching fulfillment may be selective as in the examples I gave.
This is the point I was making earlier. You said this:You have a similar problem IMO because everything that doesn’t appear to fit the near view you need to allegorize or spiritualize.
Why assume it is different? This is common language throughout the OT.quote:
Would you not agree that this is an example of prophecy contained in metaphoric/figure of speech language? If so then why should we assume Joel 2 is any different:
Yes, I agree it is a mix but Joel 2 is another case and each must be individually analyzed. Why assume it must be the same?
Things literally happen in the spiritual realm, but we can only apprehend most of those things through descriptions that are not literal. Our languages aren't capable of describing the spiritual realm except through metaphor and symbolism -- by stretching words that apply to our physical world and extending them by analogy into the spiritual realm.Originally posted by JackRUS:
I would like to comment that when something happens in the spiritual realm, it's literal as well.
No, I don't think you've proven that particular example. You said that "this prophesy has been only 1/2 fulfilled several thousand years after it's pronouncement". I disagree, since I believe that what Jesus did at Calvary was a defeat for Satan. As such, the entire prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, even though its outworking continues to the present and into the future.I would argue that we have already proven that some prophesies are dual in their time frame, such as Gen. 3:15 as well as others that have been clearly pointed out on this page.
Perhaps there are exceptions to it, but to be honest the loose way the New Testament sometimes seems to refer to a prophecy out of context (such as Matthew 2:15,18) is an issue I struggle to understand. (A case outside of prophecy is Paul's revelation in 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 that a law about oxen was actually written entirely for its application to human labourers. Aside from this Scripture passage, who'd 'av known?) Like Grasshopper, I've basically concluded that the Holy Spirit gave insight to the inspired author in those particular situations, and I'm not in a position to likewise pull other prophecies out of context. Also, the Matthew texts Hank mentioned do not undercut the original complete fulfillment: God did bring Israel out of Egypt, for instance. At best, they are an argument for a double fulfillment (one literal and one more allegorical), and not for a partial literal fulfillment followed later by another partial literal fulfillment.So then the rule that preterists apply that Mercury calls an assumption (good choice of words), is clearly not a good rule in interpreting prophetic Scripture.