The Time of the End - A Biblical Perspective.

[CrowCross]

You do if you read and accept God's word exactly as written.

Provided God's word is interpreted exactly right.

Based on scripture? Or based on the latest newscast?

Both.
Scripture speaks of a mark...technology currently can provide such a mark.
The question is, do we currently have the technology to read the mark and "report" back to a central location? That answer I don't know. Perhaps once Musks satellites are in orbit we will.

What "beast system"? There's no such thing as a "beast system" in the Bible. The idea of a "beast system" is a doctrinal position held by only one single eschatological view.

Rev 13 presents a large part of the "beast system"

ALL the other mainstream Christian eschatologies view the mentions of "beast" (there is more than one beast) much differently. Why subscribe to the one eschatology that creates conditions not actually stated in the text of scripture? Why subscribe to the eschatology that adds to the one book of the Bible that explicitly commands us not to add to or subtract from it? That alone would be reason to dismiss that eschatology.

We now have for the first time in human history to insert technology under your skin that can be read.

Again, there is no such thing as a "one world government" in scripture. That is an interpretive view of all bowing to an individual. The only one-world government even remotely asserted in scripture is that of Christ's.

Rev 13 speaks of it. Rev 13 may not use the term "one world government" but it speaks of a one world government.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

And according to Rev 13 that authority gives much power to the beast systemm.
Rev 13:7 Then the beast was permitted....

The belief in a one-world government other than Christ's is literally a god-forsaking view. Isaiah couched the government on the birth of Christ. Was Isaiah wrong?

No.

If Isaiah was wrong, then he was not a prophet of God and everything he said can be ignored. If God spoke through Isaiah then Isaiah 9:6 must be believed exactly as written. Does the word "All..." mean all? If so then there is no other authority but that which was given to Jesus. "All" means all. That's either believed exactly as written or it isn't. If Jesus does not have ALL authority, then there are places in his creation where he is not God. The Creator is not God over all aspects of His own creation.

As i said above:
And according to Rev 13 that authority gives much power to the beast systemm.
Rev 13:7 Then the beast was permitted....

Rev 6:2 tells us... the antichrist will ride out to overcome and conquer.

No such thing as a "one world government." That is an invention of modern futurism, a view of scripture popularized in the 1800s. The same holds true with the "one world religion."

Revelations strongly disagrees.

Zechariah 14:9
And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.
.

Yes, at the end of the tribulation.

 

[Josheb]

Currently I believe we are in the birthpangs of Matt 24 with the rapture of the church next...then we turn the pages to Rev 6

In Matthew 24 Jesus said no one would know the day or the hour but he ALSO stated quite plainly the events he was describing would happen in "this generation." The words "this generation" are conjugated in the near-demonstrative and that conjugation prevents any futuristic interpretation. No one will know the day or hour, but it will happen in this generation to whom Jesus was then speaking. Just read it and accept the scripture exactly as written.

"Birth pangs" are an indication of imminency. Birth pangs don't take 2000+ years; the take hours.

Then again it could all happen 100 years from now. But, as I said, the table is almost set.

If they are 100 years from now, then they are not birth pangs.

But let's entertain this for a moment.

If "we are currently in the birthpangs of Matthew 24 with the rapture of the Church next," then when exactly, will this happen? Be specific. Don't be wishy washy. Step right out and say when. Don't post empty belief and expect anyone to give it any credence. Put some mettle behind your belief.

What happens to your belief if and when your belief does not come true? Do you change your belief? Do you have beliefs that change whenever the circumstances of life don't meet those beliefs? Or do you have beliefs that meet and transcend every circumstance?

During the 1970s and 80s there were a pile of Christian teachers who predicted the rapture was going to occur in 1988. NONE of them were correct. ALL of them proved themselves to be false teachers when it came to eschatology. When their predictions did not come true they attempted to amend their predictions and they set dates in the 80s, a few into the early 00s. NONE OF THEIR PREDICTIONS WERE CORRECT! NONE OF THOSE TEACHERS PROVED TRUTHFUL TEACHERS!. Some of them, like Hal Lindsay and David Jeremiah are still alive and still teaching imminency that never happens. There are many others who say the rapture or the second advent will happen within their lifetime because they believe the birth pangs are visible. NONE of them follow their claims to their logically necessary conclusions. Hal Lindsay is 93 years old. If he lives to be 100 (unlikely, but I'll give him 7 years) then the rapture is necessarily going to happen within the next seven years. If he dies and his words don't come true he'll be proven a false teacher. He'll be dead. No one will do anything about his false teaching or his being a false teacher. The same thing will happen with David Jeremiah. He's 81 years old. Everytime he says he believes the rapture is coming before he dies he is inextricably also saying the rapture will happen within the next 19 years. We can add another ten years to the timeframe IF he lives to 100. These are the same teachers to tell us all no one knows the day or hour.


So watch your own beliefs.

I say that to all modern futurists.

Don't hold beliefs that will repeatedly disappoint you. That is not scripture. Similarly, do not hold dual beliefs that hedge against one another. That's not scripture, either.

You claim, "birth pangs." I ask you, "When?" and the typical response is, "No one knows." Then stop claiming birth pangs. Or have an answer upon which a firm stand can be taken.

1 Samuel 15:29
Also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor change His mind; for He is not a man, that He would change His mind.”

Psalm 110:4
The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7:21
but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He would lie, nor a son of man, that He would change His mind; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

God does not change His mind. We should be like Him. We should not hold beliefs that are subject to the whims of history, or our limited understanding of those circumstances. We most definitely should not hold beliefs that result in, "Whoops! I guess I had that wrong," over and over, again and again.

There is only one eschatology that has that problem. Give some of the others another examination..... with Bible in hand, open, and read as written for authoritative verification.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, let's take a look at Revelation 13.

Revelation 13:1-18
And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?" There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints. Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.


Where is the mention of "technology"?

The mark and the system to enforce the mark will require technology.

When Noah built the ark technology was used...yet the bible doen't tell us the technology Noah used to build the ark.

If there is no such mention then ask, "Why is something being added to the book that expressly tells us not to add to it?"

Nothing is added.

The bible tells us men will travel to and fro and knowledge will increase. Is that not happening now?
Did Daniel have jets and computers?

If there is no such mention then ask, "Why am I reading the text in a manner that would have been completely foreign, alien to the first-century Church to whom this was originally written? Why am I abandoning the core principle of original meaning? Why am I abandoning what the Christians in the first century would have understood since, after all, this was a revelation, a revealing to them?"

I'm sure the first century church scratched their heads over much of Revelation...and other prophecy.
Then again they couldn't understand the technology of the "end times".
If the technology of 2,500 years from now was explained to you do you think you could understand it?

The book of Revelation was written to the Church, not Israel. The word "Israel" is mentioned only three times in the book of Revelation and only one of those mentions has anything to do with Israel as a nation. Look it up. Seriously: look it up. Verify what I just posted. See for yourself.

True, up to Rev 6...then the church is no longer mentioned.

Why is the nation of Israel being added to a book that tells us not to add to it?

Revelation mentions a "temple"....with sacrifices....does this sound like the church?

There is not scripture explicitly stating a third temple will be built. The third temple position is solely a function of inferential reading than can be reached only be denying the facts of scripture explicitly telling us there were two temples built after the Old Testament prophets. One was Herods, the other was God's. The temple of prophecy was a temple that would be built by God, not man. Look it up. The New Testament tells us that temple was built.

Currently there is no temple...but the bible mentions a temple in the end times.

The temple prophecies are literally fulfilled in Christ and his body.

...and the anti-christ is going to come into each believer....and claim to be God?
2 Thes 2:4

 

[Josheb]

Provided God's word is interpreted exactly right.

No, reading God's word as written does not require "interpretation."

See, this is a trap into which many of us fall. Assuming everything needs interpretation is wrong. It's a presuppositional error on our part. It is an error that causes more errors because one of the most basic principles of correct interpretation is to let the literal statements of scripture interpret the figurative and symbolic statements of scripture. The reason this is a core principle is because that which is literal does not need intrpretation. It is the means of interpretation.

The skills lie in correctly identifying that which is explicit.

The skills lie in using scripture to render scripture, not post-biblical doctrine.

For example, I mentioned "this generation" in one of my posts above. I mentioned that because of your appeal to Matthew 24. Matthew and Luke are the only gospel writers who use this phrase. It is absent from Mark and John. There are exactly 14 mentions of the phrase and every single one of them literally means "this generation, not "that generation," (as some teachers claim) the generation to whom Jesus is speaking. The Greek conjugation found in Matthew 24 actively prevents a futuristic interpretation.

In other words, you appeal to "Provided God's word is interpreted exactly right," when the exact right interpretation of Matthew 24's "this generation" is NOT to interpret it, but to read it literally, exactly as written with the ordinary meaning of those word in their normal everyday usage!

Look them up. All 14 mentions can be examined within a few minutes.



There is one example of "this generation" in the New Testament that does require interpretation. It is found in Hebrews 3:10. There the author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 95:10, and he is quoting Psalm 95:10 to say the prediction or prophecy of Psalm 95:10 has come true. Psalm 95:10 states, "that generation," Hebrews3:10 states, "this generation." Was the inspired author of Hebrews abusing God's word? Or was he rendering what was previously veiled to review its true and original meaning? It is very clear the author of Hebrews is claiming the Psalm 95 prophecy had literally been fulfilled. Look it up.

After obtaining (and accepting) the facts of the newer revelation use those facts to examine, test, and verify EVERYTHING every other Christin in modern times teaches on the matter because anyone not sticking to the facts of scripture is erring. Most of them will teach as if their views are givens, not up for debate. Gary Hamrick (of Calvary Chapel) is a modern futurist. I disagree with 95% of what he teaches eschatologically, BUT I have some respect for the man personally because he couches his eschatology in the context of acknowledging the other views and the possibility he may err in some places. Most don't.


Please don't take my challenges personally. Look up the verses in Revelation that are said to justify a one-world government and see if that is what they actually state. Do the same with the idea of a one-world religion. These are interpretive views, and they are interpretive views reached only, solely by a certain inferential reading of scripture. Scripture does not actually, explicitly state either will happen.

I am not pitting my personal views against yours.

I am asking you to look first at what is actually explicitly stated in scripture and accept what is explicitly stated in God's word as written...... apart from what post-biblical eschatologies add to the explicit statements of God's word.

 

[Josheb]

The mark and the system to enforce the mark will require technology.

Says who?


Do you believe the revelation of Christ was given to the first century Church so they would understand that revelation?

Or do you believe the revelation of Jesus was given to the first century knowing the revealing did not reveal anything of the revelation to them?




Are non-existent references to "technology" to be understood as first century technology, or as 21st century technology? The moment anyone says, "21st century technology," or "modern technology" they render scripture meaningless for 20 centuries of Christians. None of them could possibly understand what was written because the technology giving it meaning did not exist.

Scripture is never meaningless.

All appeals to modern conditions the first century couldn't have fathomed are bad interpretations. They violate the core concept of original meaning. The FIRST step in sound exegesis is to first understand the text as the original author would have intended it and as the original readers would have understood it. THEN apply to current practice of the faith. Look it up. Every single source on basic principles of Biblical interpretation will list that precept. ALL of them.




Which means the "mark," could be a scar or a tattoo (for example) but it CANNOT be a computer chip or vaccine. The latter options would have been unknown, never understood by those reading Revelation in the first century. Anyone teaching the mark is a computer chip or vaccine has abandoned one of the most basic principles of interpretation that is "exactly right."

 

[CrowCross]

In Matthew 24 Jesus said no one would know the day or the hour but he ALSO stated quite plainly the events he was describing would happen in "this generation." The words "this generation" are conjugated in the near-demonstrative and that conjugation prevents any futuristic interpretation. No one will know the day or hour, but it will happen in this generation to whom Jesus was then speaking. Just read it and accept the scripture exactly as written.

This generation...can you be more specific?

"Birth pangs" are an indication of imminency. Birth pangs don't take 2000+ years; the take hours.

If they are 100 years from now, then they are not birth pangs.

As I said, I believe the birth pangs are happening or about to happen.
I could be wrong...the birth pangs might not start for another 100 years.

But let's entertain this for a moment.

If "we are currently in the birthpangs of Matthew 24 with the rapture of the Church next," then when exactly, will this happen? Be specific. Don't be wishy washy. Step right out and say when. Don't post empty belief and expect anyone to give it any credence. Put some mettle behind your belief.

As you said, we don't know the day or hour so why do you ask me to be exact?

What happens to your belief if and when your belief does not come true? Do you change your belief? Do you have beliefs that change whenever the circumstances of life don't meet those beliefs? Or do you have beliefs that meet and transcend every circumstance?

I only stated that the table is pretty much set.
The gospel has pretty much been preached to the entire planet.
Every person via video has the ability to see Christ return.
The technology for a digital currency...world wide...is pretty much here.
...the list goes on and on.

During the 1970s and 80s there were a pile of Christian teachers who predicted the rapture was going to occur in 1988. NONE of them were correct. ALL of them proved themselves to be false teachers when it came to eschatology. When their predictions did not come true they attempted to amend their predictions and they set dates in the 80s, a few into the early 00s. NONE OF THEIR PREDICTIONS WERE CORRECT! NONE OF THOSE TEACHERS PROVED TRUTHFUL TEACHERS!. Some of them, like Hal Lindsay and David Jeremiah are still alive and still teaching imminency that never happens. There are many others who say the rapture or the second advent will happen within their lifetime because they believe the birth pangs are visible. NONE of them follow their claims to their logically necessary conclusions. Hal Lindsay is 93 years old. If he lives to be 100 (unlikely, but I'll give him 7 years) then the rapture is necessarily going to happen within the next seven years. If he dies and his words don't come true he'll be proven a false teacher. He'll be dead. No one will do anything about his false teaching or his being a false teacher. The same thing will happen with David Jeremiah. He's 81 years old. Everytime he says he believes the rapture is coming before he dies he is inextricably also saying the rapture will happen within the next 19 years. We can add another ten years to the timeframe IF he lives to 100. These are the same teachers to tell us all no one knows the day or hour.

I never said we will know the day or hour. Jesus only said we will know the signs....and many of those signs are currently happening.

So watch your own beliefs.

I say that to all modern futurists.

Don't hold beliefs that will repeatedly disappoint you. That is not scripture. Similarly, do not hold dual beliefs that hedge against one another. That's not scripture, either.

You claim, "birth pangs." I ask you, "When?" and the typical response is, "No one knows." Then stop claiming birth pangs. Or have an answer upon which a firm stand can be taken.

What will the birth pangs according to you look like?

1 Samuel 15:29
Also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor change His mind; for He is not a man, that He would change His mind.”

Psalm 110:4
The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7:21
but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He would lie, nor a son of man, that He would change His mind; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

God does not change His mind. We should be like Him. We should not hold beliefs that are subject to the whims of history, or our limited understanding of those circumstances. We most definitely should not hold beliefs that result in, "Whoops! I guess I had that wrong," over and over, again and again.

I suppose when the wisemen saw the sign of the star they were wrong.

There is only one eschatology that has that problem. Give some of the others another examination..... with Bible in hand, open, and read as written for authoritative verification.

Basically you have no eschatology.

 

[Josheb]

The mark and the system to enforce the mark will require technology.

Says who?


Do you believe the revelation of Christ was given to the first century Church so they would understand what was revealed in that revelation?

Or do you believe the revelation of Jesus was given to the first century knowing the revealing did not reveal anything of the revelation to them?

Was the revealing revealing, or not?

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bondservants, the things which must soon take place...


Did the revealing revelation show them, or not?

Did it show them?


Are non-existent references to "technology" to be understood as first century technology, or as 21st century technology? The moment anyone says, "21st century technology," or "modern technology" they render scripture meaningless for 20 centuries of Christians. None of them could possibly understand what was written because the technology giving it meaning did not exist.

Scripture is never meaningless.

All appeals to modern conditions the first century couldn't have fathomed are bad interpretations. They violate the core concept of original meaning. The FIRST step in sound exegesis is to first understand the text as the original author would have intended it and as the original readers would have understood it. THEN apply to current practice of the faith. Look it up. Every single source on basic principles of Biblical interpretation will list that precept. ALL of them.




Which means the "mark," could be a scar or a tattoo (for example) but it CANNOT be a computer chip or vaccine. The latter options would have been unknown, never understood by those reading Revelation in the first century. Anyone teaching the mark is a computer chip or vaccine has abandoned one of the most basic principles of interpretation that is "exactly right."

 

[CrowCross]

No, reading God's word as written does not require "interpretation."

The Jews at the time of Christ interpreted the bible incorrectly....much like you are doing.

See, this is a trap into which many of us fall. Assuming everything needs interpretation is wrong. It's a presuppositional error on our part. It is an error that causes more errors because one of the most basic principles of correct interpretation is to let the literal statements of scripture interpret the figurative and symbolic statements of scripture. The reason this is a core principle is because that which is literal does not need intrpretation. It is the means of interpretation.

I don't disagree.
The bible speaks of a third of the trees, fish, ships being destroyed...this has not happened yet.
tbut I have to ask... do you have a secret decoder ring that explains it all?

The skills lie in correctly identifying that which is explicit.

The skills lie in using scripture to render scripture, not post-biblical doctrine.

For example, I mentioned "this generation" in one of my posts above. I mentioned that because of your appeal to Matthew 24. Matthew and Luke are the only gospel writers who use this phrase. It is absent from Mark and John. There are exactly 14 mentions of the phrase and every single one of them literally means "this generation, not "that generation," (as some teachers claim) the generation to whom Jesus is speaking. The Greek conjugation found in Matthew 24 actively prevents a futuristic interpretation.

Copy and paste the verse you have in mind.

In other words, you appeal to "Provided God's word is interpreted exactly right," when the exact right interpretation of Matthew 24's "this generation" is NOT to interpret it, but to read it literally, exactly as written with the ordinary meaning of those word in their normal everyday usage!

Copy and paste the verse you have in mind.

Look them up. All 14 mentions can be examined within a few minutes.



There is one example of "this generation" in the New Testament that does require interpretation. It is found in Hebrews 3:10. There the author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 95:10, and he is quoting Psalm 95:10 to say the prediction or prophecy of Psalm 95:10 has come true. Psalm 95:10 states, "that generation," Hebrews3:10 states, "this generation." Was the inspired author of Hebrews abusing God's word? Or was he rendering what was previously veiled to review its true and original meaning? It is very clear the author of Hebrews is claiming the Psalm 95 prophecy had literally been fulfilled. Look it up.

After obtaining (and accepting) the facts of the newer revelation use those facts to examine, test, and verify EVERYTHING every other Christin in modern times teaches on the matter because anyone not sticking to the facts of scripture is erring. Most of them will teach as if their views are givens, not up for debate. Gary Hamrick (of Calvary Chapel) is a modern futurist. I disagree with 95% of what he teaches eschatologically, BUT I have some respect for the man personally because he couches his eschatology in the context of acknowledging the other views and the possibility he may err in some places. Most don't.


Please don't take my challenges personally. Look up the verses in Revelation that are said to justify a one-world government and see if that is what they actually state. Do the same with the idea of a one-world religion. These are interpretive views, and they are interpretive views reached only, solely by a certain inferential reading of scripture. Scripture does not actually, explicitly state either will happen.

I've previously looked up the verses...you're wrong.
So, I ask you for the specific verse you have in mind.

I am not pitting my personal views against yours.

I am asking you to look first at what is actually explicitly stated in scripture and accept what is explicitly stated in God's word as written...... apart from what post-biblical eschatologies add to the explicit statements of God's word.

You still haven't provided an alternative eschatology. I've presented what rev says....and you disagree without cause.

 

[CrowCross]

Says who?

Then how will it be accomplished?
You never provide answers.

Do you believe the revelation of Christ was given to the first century Church so they would understand what was revealed in that revelation?

To a degree...but what is mentoned in Revelation hasn't happen as of yet.
Have you ever read revelations?

Or do you believe the revelation of Jesus was given to the first century knowing the revealing did not reveal anything of the revelation to them?

Is all prophecy written for the generation at the time it was written?

Was the revealing revealing, or not?

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bondservants, the things which must soon take place...

As I said....the events of Revelation haven't taken place yet.

When has the anti-christ forced a mark upon the world?

Did the revealing revelation show them, or not?

Did it show them?


Are non-existent references to "technology" to be understood as first century technology, or as 21st century technology? The moment anyone says, "21st century technology," or "modern technology" they render scripture meaningless for 20 centuries of Christians. None of them could possibly understand what was written because the technology giving it meaning did not exist.

OK??? So what???

Who were the two witnesses? Were those verses written for the early church? If so when were they fulfilled?

Scripture is never meaningless.

I never claimed it was.

All appeals to modern conditions the first century couldn't have fathomed are bad interpretations. They violate the core concept of original meaning. The FIRST step in sound exegesis is to first understand the text as the original author would have intended it and as the original readers would have understood it. THEN apply to current practice of the faith. Look it up. Every single source on basic principles of Biblical interpretation will list that precept. ALL of them.

Crucifixation was mentioned in the bible before it was a reality.

Which means the "mark," could be a scar or a tattoo (for example) but it CANNOT be a computer chip or vaccine. The latter options would have been unknown, never understood by those reading Revelation in the first century. Anyone teaching the mark is a computer chip or vaccine has abandoned one of the most basic principles of interpretation that is "exactly right."

Then what was the mark and when was it enforced world wide?

Problem is you can't even come close to answering questions like this.

 

[Josheb]

This generation...can you be more specific?

Yes. If Post #24 (above) is read then the information needed to examine this will be found.


I will add this to that post: Most, if not all, of those mentions of "this generation," in the New Testament are references to the Old Testament's mentions of either "that generation" or "this generation." I exhort you first to examine the New Testament's uses because the New Testament explains the Old. A New Testament understanding of the Old will be gained if the reading is done that way. Christian eschatology is not Jewish eschatology .

It will be noted that the Old Testament uses are invariably couched in messianic context. They are often explicitly conditional. In other words, those uses are conditioned, or predicated upon something that the prophecy says will happen in the future. This is what happens in Matthew 24; Jesus predicates his "this generation" on the disciples seeing, hearing, experiencing the signs he's listed. When Jesus says, "When you see x , then you know the time is at hand," he is making a conditional statement. The "X" is predicated upon their experiencing the signs and their experience, not the experience of some unknown people living 2000+ years later. Similarly, the Old Testament mentions of "this generation," (there are only 17 of them), are typically couched in the context of other events and as the surrounding text is read it will be noticed those conditions are often the incarnation, the first advent, not the second. Some of them aren't so explicit or clear but all the ones that are explicitly couched in the incarnation can automatically be removed from a futurist interpretation.

They can and should be removed from a futurist interpretation because they are not future. They are past. They occurred during the incarnation, during the time the Old Testament indicated they would occur. This is confirmed when Jesus quotes those texts and applies it to his first century audience. The Old Testament informs the New; the New Testament explains the Old.

Where the New Testament writers treated scripture a given way, we should do the same. Where thy treated it literally, we should do the same. Where they treated it figuratively, then we should do the same. Where they allegorized, or "spiritualized," we should follow their example. We should not treat God's word differently than the example se for us by those inspired to pen the newer revelation.

A lot do.

And they put down those who believe differently judging them for allegorizing or spiritualizing, and while it is true many do allegorize and spiritualize incorrectly, allegory and spiritualization are not in and of themselves wrong. Many abuse the literal reading of scripture but their abuse does not negate the validity, veracity, and efficacy of literal reading where appropriate.

The Jesus' and apostles' example is our guideline. Do as they did.

Hope that helps.





Let me add this: a plain and exegetical reading of scripture will be found to confront preconceived, already-existing beliefs. It's tough. It causes us to question the teachers we otherwise respect, and it causes us to question ourselves. "How could I have believed other than what this scripture states when plainly read?" will happen. I know because I used to be a modern futurist. I know because a faithful brother in Christ took me aside one day and opened the Bible and showed me some of the things I have posted. I did not handle it well. I cursed him. Loudly. In public. Shamefully. I did what you are starting to do . I get it.

He was faithful. He simply said, "It's okay, Josh. Go home and read your Bible for yourself and see." So I did. I'd been a Christian twenty years by then. Twenty years of teaching by otherwise faithful, earnest and sincere teachers had to change if what scripture states is true. Modern futurism is VERY popular nowadays. It sells a lot of books and brings the authors a lot of money. It causes their students to live a life of constant expectation that is never realized, a life of beliefs that repeatedly change with every newscast. There is a better life in Christ than that one.


That life understands God can be trusted and relied upon because He has kept His word, not because He will keep His word. That is a subtle but very important distinction. Many have walked away from the faith because their own futurism set them up for disappointment.

 

[Josheb]

The bible speaks of a third of the trees, fish, ships being destroyed...this has not happened yet.

And it won't.

A literal reading of that verse would mean the earth is dead. NO LIFE would survive that.

tbut I have to ask... do you have a secret decoder ring that explains it all?

Don't be snotty.

Copy and paste the verse you have in mind.

Copy and paste the verse you have in mind.

Already done. Read my posts. Get out a Bible and look up the texts I cited and quoted. Look up the one YOU cited and quoted and read them exactly as written without the "exactly right" interpretation learned from modern futurist teachers.

I've previously looked up the verses...you're wrong.

Yeah, okay.

You still haven't provided an alternative eschatology.

lol! Moving the goal posts and tu quoque are both fallacious responses that indicate unnecessary defensiveness. I don't do those conversations.


The fact is I don't have to have an alternative to prove something incorrect. Both our views might be incorrect. Any view being incorrect does not prove my view correct. My view being incorrect does not prove another view correct. The appeal to alternative views isn't just fallacious, it is lame.

It is also irrelevant.

I did in fact post an alternative (apparently all my posts were not read), but that is immaterial to the practice of going back to scripture to examine our own views, which is what I have asked, encouraged, and exhorted everyone to do. I'm not your enemy and if this conversation is made adversarial, I'll simply move on leaving the posts to evidence what is all too commonly occurring: the modern futurists propensity to attack anyone who disagrees rather than examine their own beliefs.

The ONE thing upon which we should all agree is this: properly exegeted scripture is THE authority by which the veracity of ALL Christian doctrine is measured. Proper exegesis begins first with what is stated.

I've presented what rev says....

No, that did not happen. An interpretation of Revelation is what was presented, not what it actually states. That interpretation conflicts with things stated in Revelation about when its events would happen.

and you disagree without cause.

Posts prove otherwise.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes. If you read Post #24 (above) then the information needed to examine this will be found.


I will add this to that post: Most, if not all, of those mentions of "this generation," in the New Testament are references to the Old Testament's mentions of either "that generation" or "this generation." I exhort you first to examine the New Testament's uses because the New Testament explains the Old. You'll have a New Testament understanding of the Old if you do it that way. Christian eschatology is not Jewish eschatology .

It will be noted that the Old Testament uses are invariably couched in messianic context. They are often explicitly conditional. In other words, those uses are conditioned, or predicated upon something that the prophecy says will happen in the future. This is what happens in Matthew 24; Jesus predicates his "this generation" on the disciples seeing, hearing, experiencing the signs he's listed. When Jesus says, "When you see x , then you know the time is at hand," he is making a conditional statement. The "X" is predicated upon their experiencing the signs and their experience, not the experience of some unknown people living 2000+ years later. Similarly, the Old Testament mentions of "this generation," (there are only 17 of them), are typically couched in the context of other events and as you read the surrounding text it will be noticed those conditions are often the incarnation, the first advent, not the second. Some of them aren't so explicit or clear but all the ones that are explicitly couched in the incarnation can automatically be removed from a futurist interpretation.

They can and should be removed from a futurist interpretation because they are not future. They are past. They occurred during the incarnation, during the time the Old Testament indicated they would occur. This is confirmed when Jesus quotes those texts and applies it to his first century audience. The Old Testament informs the New; the New Testament explains the Old.

Where the New Testament writers treated scripture a given way, we should do the same. Where thy treated it literally, we should do the same. Where they treated it figuratively, then we should do the same. Where they allegorized, or "spiritualized," we should follow their example. We should not treat God's word differently than the example se for us by those inspired to pen the newer revelation.

A lot do.

And they put down those who believe differently judging them for allegorizing or spiritualizing, and while it is true many do allegorize and spiritualize incorrectly, allegory and spiritualization are not in and of themselves wrong. Many abuse the literal reading of scripture but their abuse does not negate the validity, veracity, and efficacy of literal reading where appropriate.

The Jesus' and apostles' example is our guideline. Do as they did.

Hope that helps.





Let me add this: you'll find the plain and exegetical reading of scripture confronts preconceived, already-existing beliefs. It's tough. It causes us to question the teachers we otherwise respect, and it causes us to question ourselves. "How could I have believed other than what this scripture states when plainly read?" will happen. I know because I used to be a modern futurist. I know because a faithful brother in Christ took me aside one day and opened the Bible and showed me some of the things I have posted to you. I did not handle it well. I cursed him. Loudly. In public. Shamefully.

He was faithful. He simply said, "It's okay, Josh. Go home and read your Bible for yourself and see." So I did. I'd been a Christian twenty years by then. Twenty years of teaching by otherwise faithful, earnest and sincere teachers had to change if what scripture states is true. Modern futurism is VERY popular nowadays. It sells a lot of books and brings the authors a lot of money. It causes their students to live a life of constant expectation that is never realized, a life of beliefs that repeatedly change with every newscast. There is a better life in Christ than that one.


That life understands God can be trusted and relied upon because He has kept His word, not because He will keep His word. That is a subtle but very important distinction. Many have walked away from the faith because their own futurism set them up for disappointment.

Matt 24:32 Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

Jesus said...concerning THIS generation...They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Did the people of that generation see the coming of the Son of Man? The answer is an obvious no. Did they experience what Jesus spoke of in the previous verses? Once again the answer is an obvious no.

It should be pretty obvious that THIS generation is a future generation...people.

 

[Josheb]

Problem is you can't even come close to answering questions like this.

Any failure on my part does not prove truth on yours. We could both be wrong.

So stow that cr@p.

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. I'm gonna take a break. I'll come back later to review the responses. I'll ignore any post where things were made personal, especially in derision. I don't collaborate with falsehood and ad hominem.

 

[Josheb]

It should be pretty obvious that THIS generation is a future generation...people.

That "obviousness" true only for the modern futurist. For everyone else the texts says something different because the texts states something different, and it is read exactly as written.

 

[CrowCross]

CrowCross said:
The bible speaks of a third of the trees, fish, ships being destroyed...this has not happened yet.

You replied back with....

And it won't.

A literal reading of that verse would mean the earth is dead. NO LIFE would survive that.

Perhaps not...but you can't say that with certainy. Or can you?

Tell me why Rev 8:7 and 8:8 it can't be literal?

If it isn't literal then what is John speaking of?

 

[Josheb]

Did the people of that generation see the coming of the Son of Man?

YES!!!

They just did not see the modern-futurists' view of the coming of the Son of Man.

If God states, "X will happen soon," then He meant exactly what He stated and it therefore did happen soon after He said it would happen soon. We may or may not understand the actual happening as such, but that does not change the veracity of God's word. Post hoc arguments are fallacious, too. Watch for them.

As I said, I'm gonna take a break. Examine your own posts for 1) their consistency with plainly read scripture and 2) ad hominem and straw men.

 

[CrowCross]

Any failure on my part does not prove truth on yours. We could both be wrong.

So stow that cr@p.

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. I'm gonna take a break. I'll come back later to review the responses. I'll ignore any post where things were made personal, especially in derision. I don't collaborate with falsehood and ad hominem.

You haven't provided any insight....so far all you have done is nay-say.

 

[CrowCross]

YES!!!

They just did not see the modern-futurists' view of the coming of the Son of Man.

If God states, "X will happen soon," then He meant exactly what He stated and it therefore did happen soon after He said it would happen soon. We may or may not understand the actual happening as such, but that does not change the veracity of God's word. Post hoc arguments are fallacious, too. Watch for them.

As I said, I'm gonna take a break. Examine your own posts for 1) their consistency with plainly read scripture and 2) ad hominem and straw men.

Oh Boy....OK, when?

 

[Josheb]

Perhaps not...but you can't say that with certainy. Or can you?

Yes, I can!

That is how all this started. YOU made a claim about "birth pangs," and then hedged it with the possibility it might be 100 years away (or more). It is YOU who has the uncertainty. That is one of the reasons why I replied AND I explained that.

Tell me why Rev 8:7 and 8:8 it can't be literal?

No, I'm not going to play that game. I don't do chase-a-poster-around-theBible-from-post-to-post-to-post-to-post-never-resolving-anything-before-he-changes-again-to-another-verse.

Modern futurists do that.

If it isn't literal then what is John speaking of?

Whether literal or not, John was speaking of "...the things which must soon take place... the things which are written in it; for the time is near.... the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things...." and He told John, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near," and "if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."

Read that literally. Read that exactly as written, with the ordinary meaning of those words in their normal, everyday usage. Do not add to them and question any teacher who does!

Including me.

Including yourself.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, I can!

That is how all this started. YOU made a claim about "birth pangs," and then hedged it with the possibility it might be 100 years away (or more). It is YOU who has the uncertainty. That is one of the reasons why I replied AND I explained that.

I said were in them now....the beginnings....I said perhaps a 100 years as man may repent and God tarry a bit.
But sooner or later Revelation will happen. I personally think sooner.

No, I'm not going to play that game. I don't do chase-a-poster-around-theBible-from-post-to-post-to-post-to-post-never-resolving-anything-before-he-changes-again-to-another-verse.

Modern futurists do that.

Whether literal or not, John was speaking of "...the things which must soon take place... the things which are written in it; for the time is near.... the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things...." and He told John, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near," and "if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."

Read that literally. Read that exactly as written, with the ordinary meaning of those words in their normal, everyday usage. Do not add to them and question any teacher who does!

Including me.

Including yourself.

As I said in post 32
Jesus said...concerning THIS generation...They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Did the people of that generation see the coming of the Son of Man? The answer is an obvious no. Did they experience what Jesus spoke of in the previous verses? Once again the answer is an obvious no.

It should be pretty obvious that THIS generation is a future generation...people.