Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (33605)	10/16/2002 7:17:01 PM
From: IN_GOD_I_TRUST	Respond to of 39621

Greg, You said, "Last time I looked lions were still eating lambs, as opposed to lying down with them." Good point! But I guess anyone can spiritualize anything, even this, if they really want to! In my honest opinion, people that spiritualize so much of the Bible, deprive themselves of so much understanding about God, his teachings and will, they are missing out on his full blessings. And we already so badly blow it with our sinful nature, especially in regard to understanding, we should try to blow it a little less. And spiritualizing the Bible as blantently as some do on this thread, it is only hurting themselves! But ultimately, their understanding is God's business, not ours! May God bless us and grant us peace and understanding on this thread! In his name I pray this...Amen! God Bless, IGIT

To: Greg or e who wrote (33605)	10/16/2002 8:52:16 PM
From: Berry Picker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 39621

Dear Greg The definition of "consistent" preterist is in opposition to what is known as a "partial" ( or inconsistent ) preterist. The Partial Preterist divide the second coming into 2 separate 2nd comings. 1. Coming in Clouds in Judgement in 70AD 2. Visible and Bodily Second Coming in the Future What a partial Preterist realizes is that there is no way the bible can be the word of God and not have some kind of second coming in 70 AD so he decides that he can "divide" Matthew 24 into 2 separate comings. What they do is point to the fact that God has already "come in clouds" in the Old Testament and that it referred to a coming in Judgment. But, it is too much for them to believe that Jesus came fully in 70 AD and will not be coming again - in their lifetime or anyone else's. The Full or Consistent Preterist has also realized that Jesus and the Apostles would have to be false prophets if there was not 'some kind of coming' in 70 AD but can see no justification for separating the coming into 2 different events. Consistant Preterists have studied the scriptures enough to see that the 2nd coming was two fold in nature - Coming as a thief to the wicked but NOT catching the elect unawares. Christ came in wrath against apostate Israel and the wicked but in mercy FOR His saints. So it is 2 fold in nature but not 2 separate events separated by thousands of years. As far as "spiritualizing" we who are of the spirit understand spiritual things so you should not have a problem with that. However to make things "figurative" to avoid the plain meaning is sin. Preterists are not the ones who are guilty of this but rather the futurists are. That which is figurative is figurative and that which is not is not - deciding the when and where something is to be taken literal is the 'art' of hermeneutics. You see most eschatologies are set up around the "millenium" a word that does not even appear in scripture anywhere. Postmillenial Premillenial Amillenial. It is all based on one place in the bible at all - and that place is in the most figurative book of the bible - The Revelation given to John. The word is chilioi khil’-ee-oy plural of uncertain affinity; TDNT-9:466,1316; adj AV-thousand 11; 11 1) a thousand It was translated "a thousand" all eleven times the word is used in scripture. The word appears in 2 Pet 3:8 and all the other references are in Revelations - but only chapter 20 talks about the binding of satan for this "thousand" years. The word by itself is actually plural meaning "thousands" it is not singular without other defining singular tenses. So that in 2 Peter 3:8 it could have been translated "thousands of years are as a single day to the Lord. The question is "do we need to take this "thousands of years" or "thousand years" as being literal? I think not. If you look at the chapter there is no good reason to take it as a literal term. Nor is it to be taken in many places that a "thousand" is mentioned. Psalms 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Does God also own the cattle on hill # 1001 or 1002 ?? Or this very well know verse: Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; How long is a 1000 generations Greg? My calculations are 1000 X 40 or 40,000 years. The world is only 6000 years old. If God is going to keep this promise then futurist better stop saying Jesus will be right back. So you see many futurist will complain that the 1000 years in a figurative book must be taken literally but in a literal book it should be taken figuratively - go figure :-) The question you would need to ask yourself is what else is literal: Rev 20:1 ¶ And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. Is Jesus holding a "literal Key"? Is Jesus holding a "literal chain"? Is satan a literal "serpent"? Is it a literal "wax seal" set upon satan? Is the "bottomless pit" really without a bottom and if so how does satan boost himself back out when the literal 1000 years are finished? Why do people take almost everything else in the statement as figurative and yet the "thousands of years" as literal 1000 year period? Here is a question that no "futuristic" eschatology can properly answer. How was what follows fulfilled: Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Most try to say that the transfiguration fulfills this but it cannot for the following reasons: 1. No one had tasted death a mere 6 days later so the 'qualifier' "some shall not taste death" becomes meaningless. 2. "Coming in His Kingdom" is hardly fulfilled by Christ sitting with another two as His kingdom - so that we go from a "taste of death" to simple a "taste" of His kingdom. 3. Where are the "rewards" - how was "every man according to his works" rewarded? Do we have 2000 year old apostles living like highlanders? No - we have some very very wrong people - in fact the majority are wrong - about the second coming of Jesus Christ.