The TRADITIONAL Approach of Historicism to Bible Prophecy

[1still_waters]

I like how preterists try to pretend the "times of the Gentiles" in Jerusalem were fulfilled in 70 AD, when the Roman GENTILES came back to whack another 1/2 to 3/4 million Jews less than 70 years later, let alone the Muhammadan Gentile conquest of Jerusalem in 639 AD.

As if attacks by gentiles after ad70 are no longer permitted.
lol.

So because gentiles attack after ad70, therefore ad70 couldn't have been the times of gentiles?

 

[PeteWaldo]

It's a near demonstrative in the Greek too.

My friend, the term houtos is translated as "the same" on 28 other occasions. Combine that with a TR Greek/English interlinear and the verse could be rendered thus:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, {the same} generation shall not pass, {whereinsoever} all these things {shall have taken place}.

Which would include the "times of the Gentiles" fulfilled in Jerusalem, which took place in 1967, when Jews regained the control of Jerusalem that they still have today.

 

[zone]

What Christian would deny that they have been indoctrinated, and continue to indoctrinate themselves?

is Daniel 9 fulfilled?

yes or no?

 

[zone]

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

If we consider John's assignment shouldn't we be looking at John's "whole world"

why JOHN's WHOLE WORLD?

you have absolutely NO CLUE what the Book of revelation is about, you don't know anything at all.

the things he SAW were visions.

not of Islam, sorry.

he SAW JERUSALEM the great Harlot.

i guess i'll open a thread on it.

there is some futurist vision in Revelation, and you STILL have no idea what it is talking about. it's not future though...it's HERE. now.

and it ain't Islam.

it's so ironic because it's warning against the very thing you support and give LIFE to.

it had a mortal wound...now it's healed.

and you are part of it.

i have no idea who will follow you away from Jesus...that's up to them.

 

[zone]

My friend, the term houtos is translated as "the same" on 28 other occasions. Combine that with a TR Greek/English interlinear and the verse could be rendered thus:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, {the same} generation shall not pass, {whereinsoever} all these things {shall have taken place}.

Which would include the "times of the Gentiles" fulfilled in Jerusalem, which took place in 1967, when Jews regained the control of Jerusalem that they still have today.

oh yes.......the GAP theorists who aren't futurists.

it's all so clever.

but so transparent for ANYONE even half-way paying attention

 

[1still_waters]

My friend, the term houtos is translated as "the same" on 28 other occasions. Combine that with a TR Greek/English interlinear and the verse could be rendered thus:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, {the same} generation shall not pass, {whereinsoever} all these things {shall have taken place}.

Which would include the "times of the Gentiles" fulfilled in Jerusalem, which took place in 1967, when Jews regained the control of Jerusalem that they still have today.

No, not different words; rather, different grammatical inflections of the same words.

• In 23:36 the term is την γενεαν ταυτην (tēn genean tautēn) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").
• The grammatical inflection την (tēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the definite article ο, η, το (ho, hē to) = "the."
• The grammatical inflection γενεαν (genean) is the accusative singular form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea) = "generation."
• The grammatical inflection ταυτην (tautēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτοζ (houtos) = "this."

• In 24:34 the term η γενεαν αυτη (hē genea hautē) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").
• The grammatical inflection η (hē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the definite article ("the").
• The grammatical inflection γενεα (genea) is the nominative singujlar form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea)
• The grammatical inflection αυτη (hautē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτος (houtos) = "this".

The grammatical inflections noted above differ in the respective verses because:

• In 23:36 the term is part of a prepositional phrase in the predicate of the sentence and is therefore in the accusative case;
• In 24:35 the term is the subject of the sentence and is therefore in the nominative case.

There is absolutely no difference in the sense of the word in 23:36 and 24:34. In terms of the definition of ουτος (houtos = "this"), there is no aspect in the definition that is called "a relexive, baffling wind." The fact that the term is in the accusative case in 23:36 and is in the nominative case in 24:34 makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the term in the respective contexts.​

For further study-->http://preteristsite.com/docs/warrengreek.html
​

 

[1still_waters]

My friend, the term houtos is translated as "the same" on 28 other occasions. Combine that with a TR Greek/English interlinear and the verse could be rendered thus:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, {the same} generation shall not pass, {whereinsoever} all these things {shall have taken place}.

Which would include the "times of the Gentiles" fulfilled in Jerusalem, which took place in 1967, when Jews regained the control of Jerusalem that they still have today.

[h=4]Greek Error 2: The phrase "until all these things take place" is better understood as "until all these things begin to take place" since the Greek verb 'genetai' is an ingressive aorist.[/h]My first objection is practical. It amounts to "so what?" There are always wars, famines, pestilences, persecutios, and the like. The only distinct and non-repeatable event, the destruction of the Temple then-standing, didn't "begin" to take place in that generation - it took place. The "coming of Christ" (in a futurist bodily sense which I reject for that passage) didn't "begin" to take place? So this is really spitting into the wind. But on the level of Greek, it is just downright wrong. Greek scholar John Reece supplied me with this answer to this assertion:

Here are criteria which indicate that a verb may perhaps be an ingressive aorist:

• * The present tense the verb in question denotes a state or continued action.
• * The verb in question is a denominative.
• * The verb is a first aorist rather than a second aorist.

The aorist subjunctive (genetai) of the verb ginomai in Matthew 24:34meets none of those criteria; rather,

• * it is a second aorist rather than a first aorist,
• * it is not a denominative,
• * and the present tense of ginomai does not denote a state or continued action.

It would be a rather significant and noteworthy grammatical phenomenon if it were true, none of the advanced Greek grammars that I have at hand (Robertson, Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Dana & Mantey, Wallace, Smyth) mention any possibility of such a take on the occurrence of genetai in Matthew 24:34. (or Mark 13:30. or Luke 21:32). [personal correspondences with John Reece May 2008]

http://preteristsite.com/docs/warrengreek.html​

 

[PeteWaldo]

It's a near demonstrative in the Greek too.

And regarding the number of koine Greek terms translated as "generation", no small amount of Nazis and skinheads feed off of the idea that God hates Jews. Or that Jews killed Jesus, etc, etc. And this term has a lot to do with Roman Catholic punitive supersessionism, that inspires a lot of anti-semitism. No shortage of others view it the same way, though generally not for such nefarious ends. The example of the term "generation" that follows is translated from "genea"

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation (1074).

Strong's 1074 genea
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Now this may be a minority view, but since I believe that the God that I serve judges folks by the condition of one's heart, rather than the happenstance of the dating of one's birth, I believe that the metaphorical sense of the term makes more sense.

 

[1still_waters]

And regarding the number of koine Greek terms translated as "generation", no small amount of Nazis and skinheads feed off of the idea that God hates Jews. Or that Jews killed Jesus, etc, etc. And this term has a lot to do with Roman Catholic punitive supersessionism, that inspires a lot of anti-semitism. No shortage of others view it the same way, though generally not for such nefarious ends. The example of the term "generation" that follows is translated from "genea"

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation (1074).

Strong's 1074 genea
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Now this may be a minority view, but since I believe that the God that I serve judges folks by the condition of one's heart, rather than the happenstance of the dating of one's birth, I believe that the metaphorical sense of the term makes more sense.

Poisoning the well with guilt by association.
Mormons use the KJV therefore KJV readers are like Mormons..

Every other place in Matthew that this generation is used it refers to that generation.
But in Matthew 24 it doesn't?

YO K.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

well i subscribe to the classical form of historicism...and this overemphasis on islam has not traditionally been a part of historicist eschatology...

i will also add that the 'day year principle' was introduced only as recently as the nineteenth century into some historicist schools of thought...named the millerite or seventh day adventist school... classical historicism does not recognize the validity of the 'day year principle'...and this 'principle' always leads to junk eschatology...such as the failed prediction of the millerites as well as the islam centric interpretation here...

i do see muhammad in just one place in bible prophecy though...i believe he is the second horseman in revelation...

 

[PeteWaldo]

well i subscribe to the classical form of historicism...and this overemphasis on islam has not traditionally been a part of historicist eschatology...

After the Islamic First Jihad suffered its mortal wound, Islam wasn't very easy to see, until the beast was healed and the second Jihad was financed by western wealth transfer.
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-historicism-bible-prophecy-2.html#post980172
And with the smell of the burning flesh of the Reformers still in the air, it shouldn't be a surprise that a few of them may have at least wanted to pencil the papacy in as "The" "Antichrist'.

i will also add that the 'day year principle' was introduced only as recently as the nineteenth century .......

Which is contrary to the list I lifted from a historicist website.

....... into some historicist schools of thought...named the millerite or seventh day adventist school...

That cults happen to share one of the 3 entire approaches to eschatology (not counting Idealism) does not poison that entire approach. Just because Arnold Murray's Serpent Seed cult happens to be futurist, does not mean that all futurists must believe that Eve had literal sex with the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

classical historicism does not recognize the validity of the 'day year principle'...and this 'principle' always leads to junk eschatology...such as the failed prediction of the millerites as well as the islam centric interpretation here...

I believe that what you really mean is that a cult misused and abused the language. Indeed it has been my experience that most Christians recognize the language, and even apply it to 69 of Daniel's 70 weeks.

i do see muhammad in just one place in bible prophecy though...i believe he is the second horseman in revelation...

So do you believe the Roman Church or the Papacy is "The" "Antichrist"?

 

[PeteWaldo]

Poisoning the well with guilt by association.
Mormons use the KJV therefore KJV readers are like Mormons..

The scriptures refer to it as judging by the fruit:

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

It might be constructive for us to take that verse to heart, and list all the groups we can think of in the tree of Zionism, and then list all the groups we can think of in the tree of anti-Zionism.

Every other place in Matthew that this generation is used it refers to that generation.
But in Matthew 24 it doesn't?

YO K.

First of all there are different Greek words translated as "generation" in Matthew.
Let's look at another example that uses the same as our last example:

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation (1074) seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

So do you think that Jesus was referring to those men that were like each other in endowments and pursuits that were seeking after a sign?
Or do you think that men were seeking after a sign because of the happenstance of the dating of their birth?
Or perhaps that all the men that shared the dating of their birth were seeking after a sign?
Which makes more sense?

 

[zone]

A
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

if this is your choice, it's still the Pharisees and those who followed them.
ALL THESE THINGS WILL COME UPON a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

 

[zone]

So do you think that Jesus was referring to those men that were like each other in endowments and pursuits that were seeking after a sign?
Or do you think that men were seeking after a sign because of the happenstance of the dating of their birth?
Or perhaps that all the men that shared the dating of their birth were seeking after a sign?
Which makes more sense?

all.
the jews seek a sign

 

[1still_waters]

The scriptures refer to it as judging by the fruit:

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

It might be constructive for us to take that verse to heart, and list all the groups we can think of in the tree of Zionism, and then list all the groups we can think of in the tree of anti-Zionism.


First of all there are different Greek words translated as "generation" in Matthew.
Let's look at another example that uses the same as our last example:

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation (1074) seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

So do you think that Jesus was referring to those men that were like each other in endowments and pursuits that were seeking after a sign?
Or do you think that men were seeking after a sign because of the happenstance of the dating of their birth?
Or perhaps that all the men that shared the dating of their birth were seeking after a sign?
Which makes more sense?

Genos is a better greek word to use if you're talking of a kind of people.

1 Peter 2

[SUP]9 [/SUP]But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

 

[zone]

well i subscribe to the classical form of historicism...and this overemphasis on islam has not traditionally been a part of historicist eschatology....

obviously

i will also add that the 'day year principle' was introduced only as recently as the nineteenth century into some historicist schools of thought...named the millerite or seventh day adventist school... classical historicism does not recognize the validity of the 'day year principle'...and this 'principle' always leads to junk eschatology...such as the failed prediction of the millerites as well as the islam centric interpretation here...

exactly

i do see muhammad in just one place in bible prophecy though...i believe he is the second horseman in revelation...

speculation.

good post though.

 

[zone]

a KJV onlyier as well..

did ya know there's a serious error in it?
do ya know what it is?