The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things that must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of, the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, even all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 1.1-3, ASV
Notice the words, "must shortly come to pass." Keep in mind that the original writings of this were written more that 1943 years ago. If we would use this phrase today what would it mean. For example, "the time for the Pittsburgh Pirates to win the World Series must shortly come to pass." Would that mean it wouldn't happen for more than 1900 years from now? Of course, the way the Pirates have been playing in the last 20 years, that might not be too far off. Okay, bad example. But, I think you get the point. If someone were to say that, you would expect the Pirates to win the World Series in the next couple years, and you might even expect to see it in your lifetime.
Well, why would this phrase mean one thing today, and something else when the Bible was originally written? The answer: it doesn't. Have the meanings of words changed that dramatically? The fact is, the people of the time of the apostles did expect the return of Christ in their lifetime. This is evidenced by 2 Peter 3 where Peter made a point to warn of mockers who would ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" (v.4) Why would Peter give this warning? It's because that is what the apostles taught, the soon return of Christ, but he didn't want these mockers to upset the faithful. And then he comforted them by telling them that the Lord is not slack concerning his return, but wanted all to be saved.
It is apparent that the apostles taught the soon return of Christ in their lifetime. Otherwise, the mockers would have had nothing to base their derision on.
And then, at the end of verse three, John wrote that the time was at hand. If I'd say my tea cup was at hand, would you think my tea cup was out in California, while I'm sitting in Pennsylvania? Of course not. You would think that my tea cup was near to me. So, why does that phrase mean something different in the Bible. The answer, it doesn't. These words mean the exact same thing in out contemporary use of the words as they did when they were originally written. You can check it out in the Greek. It won't change anything.
There is no doubt, the apostles taught the return of Christ in their lifetime. So what went wrong? Nothing. What's wrong is the futurist's interpretation.
John wrote that the events he wrote about "must shortly come to pass." If they didn't, then John lied. And so did God, whom gave it to Christ, who then gave it to John, via an angel.
I can't for the life of me understand why people can't understand this. For anyone that has a working knowledge of the English language, this should be plain.
Notice the words, "must shortly come to pass." Keep in mind that the original writings of this were written more that 1943 years ago. If we would use this phrase today what would it mean. For example, "the time for the Pittsburgh Pirates to win the World Series must shortly come to pass." Would that mean it wouldn't happen for more than 1900 years from now? Of course, the way the Pirates have been playing in the last 20 years, that might not be too far off. Okay, bad example. But, I think you get the point. If someone were to say that, you would expect the Pirates to win the World Series in the next couple years, and you might even expect to see it in your lifetime.
Well, why would this phrase mean one thing today, and something else when the Bible was originally written? The answer: it doesn't. Have the meanings of words changed that dramatically? The fact is, the people of the time of the apostles did expect the return of Christ in their lifetime. This is evidenced by 2 Peter 3 where Peter made a point to warn of mockers who would ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" (v.4) Why would Peter give this warning? It's because that is what the apostles taught, the soon return of Christ, but he didn't want these mockers to upset the faithful. And then he comforted them by telling them that the Lord is not slack concerning his return, but wanted all to be saved.
It is apparent that the apostles taught the soon return of Christ in their lifetime. Otherwise, the mockers would have had nothing to base their derision on.
And then, at the end of verse three, John wrote that the time was at hand. If I'd say my tea cup was at hand, would you think my tea cup was out in California, while I'm sitting in Pennsylvania? Of course not. You would think that my tea cup was near to me. So, why does that phrase mean something different in the Bible. The answer, it doesn't. These words mean the exact same thing in out contemporary use of the words as they did when they were originally written. You can check it out in the Greek. It won't change anything.
There is no doubt, the apostles taught the return of Christ in their lifetime. So what went wrong? Nothing. What's wrong is the futurist's interpretation.
John wrote that the events he wrote about "must shortly come to pass." If they didn't, then John lied. And so did God, whom gave it to Christ, who then gave it to John, via an angel.
I can't for the life of me understand why people can't understand this. For anyone that has a working knowledge of the English language, this should be plain.
