Rev. 9:10: Historical Facts vs. Futurist Fiction

[robycop3]

If you believe they haven't then you must believe that Christ either lied or was wrong. Which is it?

HIS soon is different from mere human soon.

And all the rhetoric one can post is no substitute for the FACT that those events haven't yet happened.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, you reject Christ's plain statements of the 'soon-ness' of His appearing. You believe He either lied or was wrong.

Did His second Coming usher in resurrection for all of the saved?

 

[timtofly]

If you believe they haven't then you must believe that Christ either lied or was wrong. Which is it?

Christ lied or was wrong is the same option not two different options. You did not even give a second option.


The Cross was the end of the age they were in. They did not even ask the right question. The Second Coming will be future until the church is complete. The destruction in 70AD is not a sign of the Second Coming. The Second Coming is not a sign that destruction will happen in 70AD. Obviously it is 2021, and 70 AD was in the past. Jesus never said when the age would end. Jesus did not know Himself and could answer that as easily as they themselves could, by, "I don't know." The age had not even started yet, because the Cross was still a day away. Jesus told them what would happen at the Second Coming and it was a totally different answer than the destruction that did happen in 70AD that was soon.

Jesus did not lie. Neither did Jesus say the destruction and His Second Coming were the same event. Jesus did not know the time of the Second Coming. He did know what would happen. What Jesus claims happens has not happened yet, no matter how much one makes pretzels out of Scripture. His glorious throne in not set up in Jerusalem. It was not set up in 70AD. Jerusalem had to lay desolate for many years, before the soon return. It was soon on the merit of being unknown, not on the merit of expediency. There is a difference.

 

[Lodic]

Actually, it refutes the pret hooey that much more.

Although I can see how you wouldn't think this historical fact really makes any real difference in the futurist vs Preterist debate, I can't see how this could possibly refute Preterism. I'm sure you will try to find a way, though.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Although I can see how you wouldn't think this historical fact really makes any real difference in the futurist vs Preterist debate, I can't see how this could possibly refute Preterism. I'm sure you will try to find a way, though.

Actually, I have already shown in post #3 in this thread that the preterist claims about historical information that supposedly shows that Revelation 9:10 has already been fulfilled is a faulty claim.

 

[robycop3]

Although I can see how you wouldn't think this historical fact really makes any real difference in the futurist vs Preterist debate, I can't see how this could possibly refute Preterism. I'm sure you will try to find a way, though.

It's just another prophesied event that hasn't yet occurred.

 

[Yeshua1]

Although I can see how you wouldn't think this historical fact really makes any real difference in the futurist vs Preterist debate, I can't see how this could possibly refute Preterism. I'm sure you will try to find a way, though.

That the Lord Jesus still has to yet return refutes it!

 

[tyndale1946]

• Rev. 9:10 "They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months."
  
  Historical fact: the length of time that Jerusalem was under siege by the Roman armies was 5 months. From April to August. Also, the Romans used ballistic weapons that were nicknamed "stingers"and had a specific ballistic weapon called a Scorpion.
• 
  One can verify this with Josephus and Ussher (both as to the terminology and the dates).
  Once again, it can be proven that the entire purpose of Revelation has been misconstrued to accommodate a futurist, not a historical fulfillment. It was certainly future fulfillment as far as John's readers were concerned, but it is long past from our perspective.

Thanks for the information Tom and that was an interesting 1st Century explanation and can add it to what I already know and believe... Then again I don't ignore Ancient Biblical History like some do... Or to use a better term... His Story... No offense Tom, still waiting for that second resurrection of Matthew 25, oh he did come in Matthew 24, in judgement!... Brother Glen

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[asterisktom]

Thanks for the information Tom and that was an interesting 1st Century explanation and can add it to what I already know and believe... Then again I don't ignore Ancient Biblical History like some do... Or to use a better term... His Story... No offense Tom, still waiting for that second resurrection of Matthew 25, oh he did come in Matthew 24, in judgement!... Brother Glen

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

No problem, brother. Honesty is never an offense. We shall charitably disagree.

 

[Lodic]

Actually, I have already shown in post #3 in this thread that the preterist claims about historical information that supposedly shows that Revelation 9:10 has already been fulfilled is a faulty claim.

Oops - you did make your case then. While I'm not totally sure about these "locusts" not being permitted to kill, we know that modern attack helicopters are very effective killing machines. I still believe Tom is right about those early "stingers". It simply makes more sense.

 

[Lodic]

It's just another prophesied event that hasn't yet occurred.

That's been our disagreement all along.

 

[Lodic]

That the Lord Jesus still has to yet return refutes it!

I totally agree that Christ's 2nd Coming is still in our future. How do you figure that this refutes the passage in question? We obviously have different interpretations of the Seals, Trumpet, and Bowl judgments.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Oops - you did make your case then. While I'm not totally sure about these "locusts" not being permitted to kill, we know that modern attack helicopters are very effective killing machines. I still believe Tom is right about those early "stingers". It simply makes more sense.

Look closely at what the passage actually says. Rev. 9:4 says that they were commanded to hurt people--not kill people. Rev. 9:5 says that it was given that they should not kill them; they were only to torment them for 5 months.

Rev. 9:6 even says that people will seek death in that day and not find it and that death will flee from them. No one that those locusts torment during that 5-month period will die, even though they will desperately want to die and seek to die.

It is nonsense to claim that this passage was fulfilled in 70 AD. The language of the passage has to be distorted and selectively treated to claim that it has already been fulfilled.

 

[kyredneck]

Jesus never said when the age would end.

???

3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?`
34 Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass. Mt 24 YLT

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; Heb 9 YLT

11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come, 1 Cor 10 YLT

 

[37818]

Although I've been a Preterist for several years, I didn't know that. Quite interesting, and that clearly supports the Preterist position. And I'd always thought Stingers were just Air Defense Artillery weapons☺

Are you an Orthodox Preterist? Or do you deny a yet second appearing of Christ?

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you an Orthodox Preterist? Or do you deny a yet second appearing of Christ?

Good question! as while partial view Ok, but full blown is heresy!

 

[robycop3]

???

3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?`
34 Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass. Mt 24 YLT

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; Heb 9 YLT

11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come, 1 Cor 10 YLT

And all the ages are ended but the present one.

And the prophesied eschatological events simply haven't happened yet. No getting by that FACT.

And yes, the generation that sees them begin will see them all.

 

[Yeshua1]

And all the ages are ended but the present one.

And the prophesied eschatological events simply haven't happened yet. No getting by that FACT.

And yes, the generation that sees them begin will see them all.

That is the generation that shall not pass away!

 

[Lodic]

Look closely at what the passage actually says. Rev. 9:4 says that they were commanded to hurt people--not kill people. Rev. 9:5 says that it was given that they should not kill them; they were only to torment them for 5 months.

Rev. 9:6 even says that people will seek death in that day and not find it and that death will flee from them. No one that those locusts torment during that 5-month period will die, even though they will desperately want to die and seek to die.

It is nonsense to claim that this passage was fulfilled in 70 AD. The language of the passage has to be distorted and selectively treated to claim that it has already been fulfilled.

My views are based on much more than this passage, so I stand by my Preterist views. However, I concede that you ask serious questions. It will be a couple of weeks before I have much time, though.

 

[Lodic]

Are you an Orthodox Preterist? Or do you deny a yet second appearing of Christ?

I am a Partial Preterist, still looking for Christ to return again.