Are we in the end times ?

[Beckie]

Good ol "Doctor Gene Scott" (choke choke )wrote much of the AoG dogma bylaws etc

 

[ewq1938]

Bottom line: BLB rarely IF EVER shows the word "the [G3588]" as a distinct word even in the texts where "the" IS INDEED present in the text... at least not on its main / surface / front page. So BE AWARE of this fact about BLB.

Made up "fact". Don't listen to TDW. They are easy to disprove on pretty much anything:

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the (ho/definite article) blood of the (ho/definite article) Lamb.

There is no definite article before "great tribulation".

 

[ewq1938]

Actually "the" is there in the Greek text of Revelation 7:14: τῆς (tēs = the) θλίψεως (thlipseōs = tribulation) τῆς (tēs = the) μεγάλης (megalēs = great) or literally "the tribulation, the great" and idiomatically "the Great Tribulation". Everyone understands it a "The Great Tribulation", not simply "great tribulation" and here's the reason given by Christ (Mt 24:21): For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. This will be a specific and unique time of history.

Wrong.

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

There are way too many people there to have gone through the actual great tribulation and be saved. There won't be that many Christians in the world before the Apostasy and certainly far less after the Apostasy.

This is about all saved people through time and all types of great tribulations they endured. That's why there is no definite article before Great Tribulation.

 

[ewq1938]

WWI was the war to end all wars ... Covid info... BLM is a good thing..

This is all garbage from someone that understands ZERO of the bible or anything else. WW1 the war to end all wars?? That's the dumbest thing I have ever read. You will be ignored from now on.

 

[Amanuensis]

Good ol "Doctor Gene Scott" (choke choke )wrote much of the AoG dogma bylaws etc

Which Bylaws? They were written before he was born. You can Google "By Laws of the Assemblies of God" to find a pdf book on them and read them.

As to their beliefs and statement of faith (something different than their by laws) you can find them here. https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths

The AOG statements of faith were not written by Dr Gene Scott.

Their position papers are written to deal with questions in the church about interpretation of various things that christians argue about. They change as the need arises.

None of these are dogma or creeds.
I don't think you will find Dr. Gene Scott contributed to either of this body of literature.

He left the AOG in 1970.
He backslid and went cukoo but that is not a reflection on the AOG.

He might have contributed to Sunday School material in the 60s but that material changes all the time and many have contributed in the past. That material is not dogma. Today the adult Sunday School material focuses on reading through the entire bible every few years and the commentary is there just to help understand how to apply it to life. These authors change often and I don't think you will find anything written by Dr Gene Scott in any AOG literature today.

He was very educated and of sound doctrine at one time in the 70s but went south and made a fool of himself in later life but to suggest that his teachings are injected into the Statement of Faiths and Fundamental Truths written by the AOG long before his daddy was born is simply false and you probably are just thinking it was true because you heard it somewhere and did not fact check.

I am replying in the spirit of helping since I don't think you want to be guilty of willfully lying to people by repeating this false information in the future.

May we seek to please the Lord from the depths of our heart and motives each and every moment of our lives.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Made up "fact". Don't listen to TDW. They are easy to disprove on pretty much anything:
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the (ho/definite article) blood of the (ho/definite article) Lamb.
There is no definite article before "great tribulation".

You obviously are MISSING the point I was making.



Let me try again:

LOOK at BLB (the source you had provided earlier to make your point). SHOW US where, at this BLB link re: Rev7:14 (your example above), point out to us where BLB shows the label "G3588" (for the word "the")... https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/ss1/s_1174014 ... BLB does NOT LABEL "G3588" (for the word "the") EVEN WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT (they are not denying it's in the text... they just aren't bothering LABELING Strong's "G3588" [for the word "the"], even when the text HAS THE WORD "THE")...

There is no definite article before "great tribulation".

Yes there is...

...the same "G3588" (definite article) that BLB NEVER SHOWS (on its basic-front-page), that I'm aware of, not even do they have "G3588 [for the word 'the']" SHOWING in Rev7:14 (your example at top): https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/ss1/s_1174014 [<--LOOK at the word "THE" used in this verse... and NOTE that BLB DOES NOT LABEL it with its own "G3588" Strong's number... This is NOT to say they don't see that word in the text, but that they don't want to take the time to put a gazillion "G3588" [for 'the'] everywhere they know that word belongs in the text. The front [basic] page of their site simply is not that "detailed" to include ALL THE NUMEROUS "G3588" [for the word 'the'] that exist in Scripture.





Same goes (re: BLB) in, say, Luke 16:8... where the word "the" IS IN THE TEXT, but that BLB doesn't bother LABELING IT ("G3588") - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/16/8/ss1/s_989008... there's too many of them in Scripture, so their front page anyway, doesn't put the Strong's number ("G3588" label) to all the multitude of "the" words used in Scripture. By doing so, they are not suggesting that G3588 word isn't in the text... they simply aren't wanting to type all those out, for whatever reason. That's ALL I'm saying (and I'm providing LINKS to SHOW you what I'm talking about.)

 

[ewq1938]

You obviously are MISSING the point I was making.

Nope.

You said, "Bottom line: BLB rarely IF EVER shows the word "the [G3588]" as a distinct word even in the texts where "the" IS INDEED present in the text"

And this is false. In the very verse we are discussing the word appears TWICE. BLB shows the definite article when it appears in a verse.

You are also using the wrong link in BLB. This is the correct one that shows the two definite articles:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/t_conc_1174014

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And this is false. In the very verse we are discussing the word appears TWICE. BLB shows the definite article when it appears in a verse.

You are also using the wrong link in BLB. This is the correct one that shows the two definite articles:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/t_conc_1174014

I already showed you, when you go to the TOOLS, that it DOES SHOW the G3588 word with the phrase "great tribulation" (THE [G3588] tribulation THE [G3588] great) in this verse (Rev7:14):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/t_concif_1174014 [different link at BLB from the one you are providing]




Where I'm making the other point, I'm saying ON THEIR MAIN / FRONT PAGE they do not put "G3588" (Strong's number for the word "the") wherever that word IS USED.... so, the point being, it is pointless to provide that particular "main / front page" link to try to make a point about whether or not "G3588 [the]" is in any given verse... coz BLB doesn't place those ["G3588 Strong's number] there (for the word "the"... even when that word IS INDEED in the text)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ ... which is ALL you had provided in your Post #461 (supposedly supporting your point):

https://christianchat.com/threads/are-we-in-the-end-times.202587/post-4806000

[THAT LINK you had provided does not show "G3588" EVEN WHEN you select the "Stron'g's" option [box] to show up on the page... And that goes for ANY of the "THE" words IN THAT VERSE.]




SEE HERE -- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/ss1/s_1174014 [NO Strong's LABEL "G3588" SHOWS for the "THE" words, that ARE IN this text]

 

[ewq1938]

^ ... which is ALL you had provided in your Post #461 (supposedly supporting your point):

https://christianchat.com/threads/are-we-in-the-end-times.202587/post-4806000

[THAT LINK you had provided does not show "G3588" EVEN WHEN you select the "Stron'g's" option [box] to show up on the page... And that goes for ANY of the "THE" words IN THAT VERSE.]




SEE HERE -- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/ss1/s_1174014 [NO Strong's LABEL "G3588" SHOWS for the "THE" words, that ARE IN this text]

We are going to need a Greek scholar to address this issue. I have taken courses in Greek but nowhere high enough to solve this. If G3588 appears in the manuscripts where you say it does, it is the feminine version of the word and the KJV did not apply it to the translation but when it is written in the neuter, they did. For now, I am accepting the KJV translation as the only accurate one:

Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of (no definite article) great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

There is a reason they translated it this way. I did find this:

https://hellenisticgreek.com/07.html

"English has two different kinds of articles: a definite article (the word “the”) and an indefinite article (the words “a” and “an”). Greek does not distinguish between these two types of articles. For that reason the usage of the article in Greek has some striking differences from the word “the” in English. While “the” is often the best translation for the Greek article, the Greek article is used in some contexts where we clearly would not use “the” in English. In such cases, the Greek article must be left untranslated. "

This is of course a different issue but it shows that a Greek article might not be translated. We just need to find exact reason KJV left feminine article untranslated.

 

[LetGodBeTrue]

Of course "SHORTLY" means "SHORTLY".

But that word (an adverb) is NOT used in Revelation 1:1 (nor 22:6). Hence the reason you keep incorrectly interpreting as you do.

But believe as you wish.

The words used in Revelation 1:1 are the same as we find in Acts 25:4 In that verse, the force of the NEARNESS and SOONNESS is enhanced by the presence of MELLO (about to) - μελλειν εν ταχει. Festus was ABOUT TO SOON (μελλειν εν ταχει--ABOUT TO in quickness (if you must)--SHORTLY) depart for Caesarea. Is the force there how quickly Festus was to jump up and get on the boat or was it the SOONNESS of his departure? The answer is clear. That same term of imminency (about to) and NEARNESS is found in Acts 24:15. Paul told Felix that there was "ABOUT TO BE (μελλειν) a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." With the same use of MELLO, Paul told Felix that there was ABOUT TO BE Judgment (vs. 25). Felix was so disturbed by Paul's words hat he sent him away. Why? Because someday off in the distant future judgment would come? NO. He was alarmed because Paul clearly told him that there was ABOUT TO be judgment (MELLO). It's NEARNESS affected HIM.

Scripture interprets Scripture. All of this TIMING coincides with the words of the writer of Hebrews (10:37) that "in a VERY, VERY LITTLE WHILE He who is coming will come and will NOT delay. It also ties in with Jesus' plain words that He was returning to those of HIS generation (Matthew 24; John 14; Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:28; Matthew 26:64), etc., etc., etc.

THOSE very disciples would not finish going through the cities of Israel before He CAME. Some of those standing right there with Jesus would see Him COMING in His kingdom. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would, in THEIR lifetime, see Him COMING on the clouds of heaven, He would return to those very disciples who lived and walked with Him for three years! He would received THEM unto Himself in THEIR time.

The timing is clear. You can split all the hairs you want trying to make "in quickness" speak of some speed of motion, but the combination of Scriptures demand not quickness but SOONNESS, NEARNESS. John was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place. That is why he was told to NOT seal up the vision. The time for its fulfillment was NEAR. If NEAR can accommodate TWO THOUSANDS years, than stating that Daniel's vision was to BE sealed because it was for a time FAR OFF (mere hundreds of years) is nonsensical. The timing of Christ's return pervades the entire NT in numerous verses and passages. They ALL coordinate. Those believers of THAT day and THAT generation lived in constant hopes of His SOON return to THEM. It was encouraged them and strengthened them through their many trials and tribulations. They did NOT hope in vain. Hope deferred makes the heart sick (Prov. 13:12). The timing is ascertained from more than just your pet verses that you like to twist to your own ends. You reject what is clear in order to uphold your unbiblical preconceived ideas.

But believe as YOU wish!

 

[ewq1938]

^ ... which is ALL you had provided in your Post #461 (supposedly supporting your point):

https://christianchat.com/threads/are-we-in-the-end-times.202587/post-4806000

[THAT LINK you had provided does not show "G3588" EVEN WHEN you select the "Stron'g's" option [box] to show up on the page... And that goes for ANY of the "THE" words IN THAT VERSE.]




SEE HERE -- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/7/14/ss1/s_1174014 [NO Strong's LABEL "G3588" SHOWS for the "THE" words, that ARE IN this text]

This is an interesting read:

https://brandplucked.webs.com/rev714greattrib.htm

"First of all, the definite article in Greek is not always used like the definite article in English, and ALL major English translations I am aware of OFTEN "add" a definite article "the" when it is not there in the Greek text, and OFTEN when the definite article IS in the text, they don't translate it. "


"In this one chapter alone (Revelation chapter 7) the NKJV ADDS the definite article when it is not there in the Greek text SIXTEEN times, and when the definite article IS there, the NKJV OMITS it TWENTY times! All this in just one chapter!


Just by way of example, we will look at verses 12 and 13 of chapter 7. The NKJV OMITS the definite article when it IS in the text before the words "Blessing, glory, wisdom, Thanksgiving, honor, power, might, God, white and robes." All 10 of these words have a definite article before them. Yet the NKJV did not translate them.


Even in the verse under discussion, Revelation 7:14, the Greek text (TR) actually says "THE tribulation THE great" yet the NKJV only translated one of them and says "THE great tribulation" - της θλιψεως της μεγαλης."





"The only other time the phrase "great tribulation" is used is in Matthew 24:21, and even then it does NOT have the definite article. The text says "For then shall be GREAT TRIBULATION, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor every shall be."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The words used in Revelation 1:1 are the same as we find in Acts 25:4

The difference is:

--in Acts 25:4, the words "mellein en tachei" are used RIGHT TOGETHER, speaking of the one person in that sentence (and which can legit be translated: "[he himself] sure to in quickness [to set out]"... conveying the very idea that translating it the other way conveys also.

--in Rev1:1, "en tachei " is used regarding [specifically] "the things which must come to pass [in quickness]" (i.e. the "future" aspects going to be "SHOW[N]" 4:1)... whereas Rev1:2-3, speaking of MORE than just the 1:1 "things which must come to pass in quickness" [which are the "future" aspects of the Book] and to which the phrase "TO SHOW UNTO" refers (1:1)...

...However, HERE in vv.2-3 uses the word "[For the time] is near [G1451]"... but "the time is near" REGARDING WHAT??


The text is not "smooshing together" [like Acts 25:4 does] the ideas of what 1:1 "to SHOW UNTO... things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" and "the time is NEAR" in v.3 (as you are interpreting these to be smooshed-together to be saying).

Note that the word "mello" used in 1:19 speaks NOT of all of the OTHER things "written" in this book [v.19a & v.19b], but ONLY OF v.19c "things which are sure to [mello] take place AFTER THESE" (AFTER THESE being... "the things which thou HAST SEEN... "and the things WHICH ARE [<--which things are NOT said of THEM that they are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS, by contrast, like I pointed out to you the other day. ]"


One cannot simply "COMPARE" Acts 25:4's wording "mellein en tachei" to the present passage under discussion, and expect they are conveying THE SAME THOUGHT... coz many other WORDS are ALSO INVOLVED amongst the verses of Rev1:1 , 1:3 and 1:19a,b,c. It is not conveying that which is being expressed in Acts 25:4 (about one guy [Subject], "mellein en tachei")

 

[Beckie]

This is all garbage from someone that understands ZERO of the bible or anything else. WW1 the war to end all wars?? That's the dumbest thing I have ever read. You will be ignored from now on.

Guess some folks dont remember or lookup newspapers from times past.

 

[Beckie]

Which Bylaws? They were written before he was born. You can Google "By Laws of the Assemblies of God" to find a pdf book on them and read them.

As to their beliefs and statement of faith (something different than their by laws) you can find them here. https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths

The AOG statements of faith were not written by Dr Gene Scott.

Their position papers are written to deal with questions in the church about interpretation of various things that christians argue about. They change as the need arises.

None of these are dogma or creeds.
I don't think you will find Dr. Gene Scott contributed to either of this body of literature.

He left the AOG in 1970.
He backslid and went cukoo but that is not a reflection on the AOG.

He might have contributed to Sunday School material in the 60s but that material changes all the time and many have contributed in the past. That material is not dogma. Today the adult Sunday School material focuses on reading through the entire bible every few years and the commentary is there just to help understand how to apply it to life. These authors change often and I don't think you will find anything written by Dr Gene Scott in any AOG literature today.

He was very educated and of sound doctrine at one time in the 70s but went south and made a fool of himself in later life but to suggest that his teachings are injected into the Statement of Faiths and Fundamental Truths written by the AOG long before his daddy was born is simply false and you probably are just thinking it was true because you heard it somewhere and did not fact check.

I am replying in the spirit of helping since I don't think you want to be guilty of willfully lying to people by repeating this false information in the future.

May we seek to please the Lord from the depths of our heart and motives each and every moment of our lives.

Dad and Scott were at Glad Tidings at the same time. I could well be mistaken about which it was he had his hand in the guy turned out to be a real creep. "He backslid and went cukoo" well said. I would not change the AofG Sunday School i had in the 50s . Researching is a good thing but i do not trust all i find in research . Look at what has been done to American history. Scott fits in with Swagart Bakker , Hinn, Allen and a few others.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Growing up in AoG Sunday School, Sunday night service and Wednesday Bible Study i heard so very often some form of Rapture any moment ! yet those folks that tell ya rapture at any time tell ya that prophesies need to be fulfilled ... something is just off about that it is as dishonest as pretending to agree.

I don't even know what is you guys' definition of this word. It seems like everybody has his own perception. Is that supposed to be an ascension like Jesus did on Mount Olives? Is it a "puff" teleportation into heaven? This kind of heresy has created a false salvation and made the entire Christian community look silly. In OT history, you've got instances like Noah, Lot, Israelites and Rahab the harlot being SPARED from God's wrath for their faith, and the same thing will take place with the Seals and the "Earth" in Rev. 12, but none of them suddenly "ascended" or disappeared.

 

[Goliath]

Another sign of the End Times....many don't take into account....The Jews rejected Jesus!!
What does this mean?
It means they rejected him, they didn't accept him as their Messiah. They do not call him Lord, as in...All who call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
It means..The Jewish nation...as a whole....are still waiting for their Messiah!!
Who will be their Messiah??
I believe it will be the beast we are warned of in Revelation.
What will happen when they call him Lord?
I believe this abomination, is the abomination that causes the desolation.
Why do I believe this?
Because they will put him in on the Throne...the throne God reserved for his Son. This abomination will cause God so much anger, who has been so patient these many years with all the sin (Abominations) in the world...he will put an end to it!!
(Matthew 24:15)
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand),
This is why this abomination is standing in the Holy Place..The Children of Abraham put him there.
If you read Matthew 24, you will see the description of the Great Tribulation, that time which precedes the naming of the false Messiah.

 

[LetGodBeTrue]

The difference is:

--in Acts 25:4, the words "mellein en tachei" are used RIGHT TOGETHER, speaking of the one person in that sentence (and which can legit be translated: "[he himself] sure to in quickness [to set out]"... conveying the very idea that translating it the other way conveys also.

--in Rev1:1, "en tachei " is used regarding [specifically] "the things which must come to pass [in quickness]" (i.e. the "future" aspects going to be "SHOW[N]" 4:1)... whereas Rev1:2-3, speaking of MORE than just the 1:1 "things which must come to pass in quickness" [which are the "future" aspects of the Book] and to which the phrase "TO SHOW UNTO" refers (1:1)...

...However, HERE in vv.2-3 uses the word "[For the time] is near [G1451]"... but "the time is near" REGARDING WHAT??


The text is not "smooshing together" [like Acts 25:4 does] the ideas of what 1:1 "to SHOW UNTO... things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" and "the time is NEAR" in v.3 (as you are interpreting these to be smooshed-together to be saying).

Note that the word "mello" used in 1:19 speaks NOT of all of the OTHER things "written" in this book [v.19a & v.19b], but ONLY OF v.19c "things which are sure to [mello] take place AFTER THESE" (AFTER THESE being... "the things which thou HAST SEEN... "and the things WHICH ARE [<--which things are NOT said of THEM that they are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS, by contrast, like I pointed out to you the other day. ]"


One cannot simply "COMPARE" Acts 25:4's wording "mellein en tachei" to the present passage under discussion, and expect they are conveying THE SAME THOUGHT... coz many other WORDS are ALSO INVOLVED amongst the verses of Rev1:1 , 1:3 and 1:19a,b,c. It is not conveying that which is being expressed in Acts 25:4 (about one guy [Subject], "mellein en tachei")

WHAT??????? This would be laughable it it weren't so sincere. What you "wrote" made absolutely no sense. Did you write that or did you merely copy and paste? Their is NO logic to any of it. But you seem intent on twisting and manipulating ANY time indicator you see so that it fits your false preconceived ideas of some unsupportable future-to-us events.

You will never understand God's Word with this agenda-driven approach.

The words say what they say. Do you engage in this much exegetical contortionism and gymnastics regarding other topics? What a hodgepodge your doctrine must be.

 

[Beckie]

Another sign of the End Times....many don't take into account....The Jews rejected Jesus!!
What does this mean?
It means they rejected him, they didn't accept him as their Messiah. They do not call him Lord, as in...All who call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
It means..The Jewish nation...as a whole....are still waiting for their Messiah!!
Who will be their Messiah??
I believe it will be the beast we are warned of in Revelation.
What will happen when they call him Lord?
I believe this abomination, is the abomination that causes the desolation.
Why do I believe this?
Because they will put him in on the Throne...the throne God reserved for his Son. This abomination will cause God so much anger, who has been so patient these many years with all the sin (Abominations) in the world...he will put an end to it!!
(Matthew 24:15)
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand),
This is why this abomination is standing in the Holy Place..The Children of Abraham put him there.
If you read Matthew 24, you will see the description of the Great Tribulation, that time which precedes the naming of the false Messiah.

Jesus sits on the Throne God reserved for Him

 

[LetGodBeTrue]

Jesus sits on the Throne God reserved for Him

Jesus sits on the Throne God reserved for Him

What are the "end times"?