My ax-grinding partial preterist thread

[1still_waters]

I need an official ax grinding thread on this...

1. Why do people who demand an almost total literal interpretation, interpret near and soon in Revelation 1:3 as some kind of figurative code speak from Jesus? Why in one of the MOST non-symbolic parts of revelation do they drop their desire for a literal interpretation and demand it all the sudden become non-literal?

2. Why do futurists demand that there be an exact reference to every event in Revelation in an outside the bible history book? They don't do that with other parts of the Bible that aren't written about in some outside the Bible history book.

I somewhat loath myself for having an ax to grind.

 

[NoahsMom]

Ahhh want me to loathe you too stilly, so you wont be lonesome and stuff..........

 

[1still_waters]

Ahhh want me to loathe you too stilly, so you wont be lonesome and stuff..........

Please I could use some company...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I need an official ax grinding thread on this...

1. Why do people who demand an almost total literal interpretation, interpret near and soon in Revelation 1:3 as some kind of figurative code speak from Jesus? Why in one of the MOST non-symbolic parts of revelation do they drop their desire for a literal interpretation and demand it all the sudden become non-literal?

2. Why do futurists demand that there be an exact reference to every event in Revelation in an outside the bible history book? They don't do that with other parts of the Bible that aren't written about in some outside the Bible history book.

I somewhat loath myself for having an ax to grind.

why would we want to take it symbolically? And who is? I have never hear anyone take this symbolically. And I am a futrist as you call it!

 

[Red33]

Stillwater, are you referring to the entire verse or just...for the time is at hand? Could you explain it a little further, I'm thick headed at times.

 

[1still_waters]

Stillwater, are you referring to the entire verse or just...for the time is at hand? Could you explain it a little further, I'm thick headed at times.

That verse basically says the stuff he's about to talk about is soon to happen...

I think everything up to the 1000 years has been fulfilled. The 1000 year reference serves as a sign-post telling us that the near/soon language didn't apply to stuff after it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That verse basically says the stuff he's about to talk about is soon to happen...

I think everything up to the 1000 years has been fulfilled. The 1000 year reference serves as a sign-post telling us that the near/soon language didn't apply to stuff after it.

then when did the 1000 years start?

 

[1still_waters]

then when did the 1000 years start?

Pfft I'm still learning about the details of this stuff.. Call me in a year.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Pfft I'm still learning about the details of this stuff.. Call me in a year.

lol, its ok.

This is where myself and non futurists disagree. I take 1000 to means 1000. according to many of them, we are almost 2000 years into that 1000 year thing.

 

[Abiding]

I thinks the rule is pick your eschatology first then allow a little freedom in your literal or symbolic options, dont jamm it
Itll fit nicely one way or another. Just dont let anyone tell you you dont have the option.

Messing With Dispensationalists - YouTube

 

[Abiding]

yes it all happened partially

 

[Elizabeth619]

I just want to call a Moderator a TROLL for some reason.

 

[zone]

then when did the 1000 years start?

when Jesus walked down the banks of the river Jordan.

a thousand years is a figurative term meaning completion, with a little sliver at the end called satan's little season (Rev 20, 2 Thess 2), we call it the tribulation.

from the First to the Second Advent >> messianic (salvation) era.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

when Jesus walked down the banks of the river Jordan.

you mean almost 2000 years ago? Then why did John see it as a future thing? if it started many years before John saw it?

Now I am even more confused!!

 

[zone]

lol, its ok.

This is where myself and non futurists disagree. I take 1000 to means 1000. according to many of them, we are almost 2000 years into that 1000 year thing.

Psalm 50:10
For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.

how many hills does God own that have cattle on them?

~

let's say for a moment that there is a literal 1,000 years following the Second Advent.....couldn't everybody in the millennium (including the bad guys) just start counting down to the last second and know exactly when the very very end is?

if satan going out to deceive the nations at the end of the 1,000 years were true, who would be deceived?

 

[zone]

you mean almost 2000 years ago? Then why did John see it as a future thing? if it started many years before John saw it?

Now I am even more confused!!

he didn't see it as an entirely future thing. he went forward in time to The Lord's Day (last day, Second Advent) and saw back and forth, up and down.

he saw that single chapter as A VISION : "And i saw...."

that chapter is parenthetical. it stops the action, zooms out, and SUMS up the whole messianic era FROM HEAVEN. john saw the souls of those who are with The Lord (no glorified bodies yet).

and he saw the satan bound thing because that happened at the First Advent.
he mentions the release because that happens just at the end (2 Thess 2).

but in order to grasp that, we have to see that Jesus is King now and is reigning now.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Psalm 50:10
For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.

how many hills does God own that have cattle on them?

Do we know how many hills there were?

was this prophesy?

let's say for a moment that there is a literal 1,000 years following the Second Advent.....couldn't everybody in the millennium (including the bad guys) just start counting down to the last second and know exactly when the very very end is?

if satan going out to deceive the nations at the end of the 1,000 years were true, who would be deceived?

those who do not believe God in the first place.

Everyone in the OT knew when messiah would come. In fact they knew by the day. (jesus confirmed this when he said, "If they only knew the day this was) yet they still had him crucified.)

Satan deceived Judas, And judas knew what everyone else knew.

Now again.. Why did John speak future tense if it was a past tense starting?

 

[1still_waters]

when Jesus walked down the banks of the river Jordan.

a thousand years is a figurative term meaning completion, with a little sliver at the end called satan's little season (Rev 20, 2 Thess 2), we call it the tribulation.

from the First to the Second Advent >> messianic (salvation) era.

Ok but here's the question.

If the 1000 years has started, it says in Rev 20 that Satan is bound, so that he can't deceive the nations...


If we're currently in the 1000 years, and Satan is bound so he can't deceive anyone, then what does that do for Eph 6 on spiritual warfare? It seems pretty clear Satan is still deceivin folks today.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

he didn't see it as an entirely future thing. he went forward in time to The Lord's Day (last day, Second Advent) and saw back and forth, up and down.

he saw that single chapter as A VISION.

that chapter is parenthetical. it stops the action, zooms out, and SUMS up the whole messianic era FROM HEAVEN. john saw the souls of those who are with The Lord (no glorified bodies yet).

and he saw the satan bound thing because that happened at the First Advent.
he mentions the release because that happens just at the end (2 Thess 2).

but in order to grasp that, we have to see that Jesus is King now and is reigning now.

oh ok. did not seer this.

Satan is not shut up. He still speaks. He is still deceiving the nations. Seems he has a prety good hold on the jews now. As you have been showing us.

He is not bound in the abyss. John saw him sent to the abyss. Why would we want to think he would not be there, and is free to roam the earth and deceive the nations, as he is doing even today.

He needs permisison to try to decieve or take a christian. we saw that with peter. But he is free to decieve any non christian nation he wants. and he does that quite well.

John saw where he was not able to do even this.

plus, it is just speculation he did not see into the future. John was speaking of future events.

things which must "come to pass" as he put it.

Thing about rev 1: 1- 3.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Interesting the very thing this thread was opened for shows it was future things he saw. Not things which had already taken place.

 

[zone]

Do we know how many hills there were?

was this prophesy?

that's a stretch EG.
how many hills are there in this world?
what was God saying about His ownership of all things?

those who do not believe God in the first place.?

here's the part i don't get.
who exactly lives in the millennium?
what's going on during it?

if there are bad guys in the millennium who don't believe, how can there be peace any more than there is now?

how can they not believe if the Glorified Christ is actually here?

Everyone in the OT knew when messiah would come. In fact they knew by the day. (jesus confirmed this when he said, "If they only knew the day this was) yet they still had him crucified.)

because Daniel was told to the day.
Daniel 9 is the key.

all fulfilled.

Satan deceived Judas, And judas knew what everyone else knew.

but Rev 20 isn't talking about individuals being deceived. its only about one thing: going out to deceive the nations, to gather them together to the battle. that's all it says about him.

Now again.. Why did John speak future tense if it was a past tense starting?

can you post the passage you are talking about?