If the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled, why...

Yes, and dispies are the worst violaters of this rule. You take the most obvious of statements and butcher the meaning to fit your view:

Rev 1:1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

1:3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Rev 22:6The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

22:7“Behold, I am coming soon ! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.”

22: 12And, behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

22: 20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly . Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


Does "CLGHH" not apply to these passages? or numerous others throughout the NT I didn't mention. Of couse these words don't mean the obvious, otherwise your eschatological view comes tumbling down. What you mean by," If the literal sense makes sense" is really "if the literal makes sense in my dispie view. Otherwise redefine the word." How do you think the original audience would have intepreted those words?

He stopped because He didn't intend to fulfill the rest of the verse at that time. That was fulfilled 40 years later. Perhaps you should read Matt 23 in your "CLGHH" method.

James in Acts 15 does indeed view Amos 9 as being fulfilled. You don't like it because it doesn't match your need for a physical fulfillment. However we should let the NT writers determine fulfillment not our pre-suppositions.

Poor God. He was unable to do what He wanted because some Jews stood in His way.
Where does the OT or NT tell us this Kingdom is conditional? Any verses? Or is it once again a pre-supposition? They expected a literal Kingdom but Jesus corrected their misunderstanding. Dispies are just like the Jews of Jesus's day. They also expected a physical Elijah but Jesus also corrected them on this error too.
When would Jesus have died for the forgiveness of sins had the Jews accepted their Messiah? Or was the death of Jesus conditional on whether the Jews accepted Him or not? Then would all of those prophecies concerning the suffering servant been left unfulfilled?

Well according to your view they rejected Him once, who's to say they won't do it again and further delay this Kingdom? Or is it not conditional the second time around?

Really, I don't see physical seed mentioned anywhere in Gen 12. I do see this though:

Galatians 3:16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.......... 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed , and heirs according to the promise.

You just don't get it. The Church doesn't replace Israel, Israel became the Church. The only ones who believe in replacement theology are those who say the Jews will replace the Church someday.

In your view when do they get this land, on this earth or in the New Earth?

Jer 31: 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD . "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.


Are you kidding? You don't apply this to the Church? I know of no Pre-Mill dispy that believes this. Even John MacArthur applies this to the gentile believers.

Does Romans not apply to the Church either since it is a fulfillment of Jer 31?

Romans 2: 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

 

Grasshopper,

Somebody has made a mistake, but it is not Scofield. His 1917 notes are available as a module download for my Online Bible, so I did not even have to type them in from my paper version!

Here is what he has at Matt 24:34 (Page 1034 of the NT in my Old Scofield Reference Bible).

[1] (This generation)

Gr. "genea," the primary definition of which is, "race, kind, family, stock, breed." (So all lexicons.) That the word is used in this sense because none of "these things," i.e. the world-wide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation—nation, or family of Israel—will be preserved unto "these things"; a promise wonderfully fulfilled to this day.


Do not know where you got your information, but you should check the source. The Greek is indeed genea as Scofield notes.

Regarding the accuracy of his definition, my Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich lexicon has the following (and I did have to type this in, since it is only available in print):
genea (of course it is in the Greek alphabet, not english transliteration)
1. Lit., those descended fr. a common ancestor, a clan, then race, kind gener.
2. Basically the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living...
3. Age, time of a generation. (page 153)


There has been some ignorance or dishonesty, but it does not rest with Scofield.

I can only assume that you used a source that supposedly quoted him. I would be interested to find who is misrepresenting this godly man of the past. I may not agree with Cyrus Ingersol Scofield on everything, but please, if there is any incompetence or deceit taking place here, lay the blame on the right doorstep.

One of the most serious problems in this whole debate – Covenant Theology vss. Dispensationalism is the SERIOUS misrepresentation that has taken place, on both sides. The most basic element of ETHICAL debate is to do your best to state your opponents position in terms that he would agree to be a fair representation of his position. FAR TOFTEN, those who attack dispensationalism do so from a position of ignorance. Not always, but far too often. Sadly the reverse is often the case as well.

I may reject Covenant Theology, but I try to be careful not to label those who hold that position with words like “incompetent” or “deceiver”.

Get your facts straight before making accusations of this nature.

 

Mr. Prince stated:

I have always wondered how people could be so messed up in their theology and you have explained this so well, Mr. Prince, & I thank you.

That being said, the glorious truths in your magnificent post & the articulate manner in which you presented these old glorious truths was quite inspiring!

 

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024

I looked in my old Scofield and he uses genea. The problem is he uses the definition for genos. He dismisses the possibilty that it means contemporaries because it didn't fit his view.

Check for yourself the usages of genea and genos in the book of Matthew and see how they are used. Genea is not used for "race". If race was what was meant them "genos" would have been used. I'll give him the benifit of the doubt and say he was just mistaken.

 

Give HIM the benefit of the doubt!!! You called him an incompetent deceiver! Mighty good of you to give him the benefit of doubt.

Maybe you should check a lexicon for the definition of genea. You are also wrong about that! I gave you the top three from Arndt and Gingrich? What are you using as an authority to say that Scofield is WRONG? A & G are recognized authorities in Greek. Who are you using?

 

Grasshopper,

OH, by the way, if your Scofield has it, what was the source? To repeat my earlier question.

Now, for your second post!

Sorry to disappoint you, but the return of Christ in glory has still not taken place!

Rev 19
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

If 1:1 and 1:3 and 22:6,7,12,20 mean soon as some versions translate, we all have a problem. So I would have to say that the literal sense does not make sense when compared with the rest of the book. At least not the literal sense of some ENGLISH versions!

The problem disappears when we look at the Greek! The tachos word group (tachos in Rev 1:1 and 22:6; tachu in Rev 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20) has suddenness as its primary meaning! Not “soon” but “suddenly” and without warning.

Arndt and Gingrich has this on page 814 for tachos: speed, quickness, swiftness, haste, with speed... And this for tachus: quick, swift, speedy, fruit that ripens quickly...

You really need to get a good lexicon if you are going to talk about the Greek as in the first post of the evening.

We get our english word tachycardia from the Greek words tachos and kardia, rapid and heart. If someone has tachycardia, their heart is not going to beat soon, rather it is beating rapidly. When Jesus comes and the events of the last days start to unfold, they will do so with great rapidity – very suddenly.

Sorry. Once again we see it is not the “dispies” who are ill informed as to the meaning of the Scriptures. Sorry that most English translations do not accurately reflect the meaning of the tachos word group in every case. They do get it right in several places, though (Matt 5:25; 28:7; Mark 16:8; John 11:29; Rev 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7,12,20 – all translated “quickly”), but sorry for those few translations that have caused confusion. That is why it is important that pastors, elders, etc receive some training in the original languages to be able to work through passages that present a difficulty at first reading.

Personally, IT IS MUCH EASIER to accept that the translators should have stuck with the primary meaning in those few confusing passages THAN TO CONTEND THAT WELL OVER HALF OF REVELATION IS APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!!! Of course, I do understand that allegorizing those things that do not fit your theology is common practice for preterists, covenant theologians, etc.

First, I don’t think the original audience had any trouble interpreting the words at all. They understood the primary meaning of tachos and tachus.

However, I would like the opportunity to deal with the “numerous others” you mention.

As far as redefining the word, the definition was not the problem. The problem was in translation, again, check some reputable lexicons. Strong’s brief definitions are sometimes insufficient. However, he was right on the money with these – “quickness, speed” and “quickly, speedily (without delay)”. Fortunately he put the secondary meaning of tachus in parenthesis.

OK. Let’s read it. I am up for that! Matt 23:
38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

It is certainly true that a part of this took place in AD 70. The temple was destroyed, as I already mentioned above. It was a time of vengeance as Luke notes in chapter 21, so the title of one preterist commentary on Revelation, “Days of Vengeance” (Which incidentally used to be available free, online). Sorry, got sidetracked. Yes indeed, Jesus told them that not one stone would be left standing on top on another that would not be cast down. Yep, AD 70.

OK. Now let’s look at verse 38. Oh, perhaps we need to be reminded that Jesus is speaking the Jewish nation here, look at verse 37. OK, just wanted that clear. If AD 70 fulfilled all of this, when did Jerusalem say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”???

Not only can I not find that in my Bible, I cannot find it in Josephus either! Perhaps that is to be taken allegorically? Guess we are back to my CLGHH after all.

But here is the real problem with that, there was no deliverance for Israel at that time, only desolation! Tell me, where was Israel’s promised comfort in AD 70.

OK. Next,

Two points here, first, you conveniently left out the verses 12-15 from Amos 9 that speak of Israel’s restoration to the land! Go back and read them, they do serious damage to your thesis. If it doesn’t fit, just leave it out, or misquote it, or give a secondary or tertiary definition as primary!

Second, HERE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF READING THE NT BACK OVER THE OT TO THE DAMAGE OF THE CLEAR WORDS OF THE OT!!! Notice you did not deal with Peter’s quote of Joel 2. That’s OK I can imagine what you would have said.

God has always been able to what He wanted to do. Reading impotence into my words is DISHONEST AND PEJORATIVE!!! Nothing in my words indicated that I thought God’s plan had in any way been frustrated!!! As NOTED EARLIER, ETHICAL DEBATE REQUIRES STATING YOUR OPPONENTS VIEW IN TERMS WITH WHICH HE WOULD ACCEPT. Any thing else is grandstanding, misleading, or maybe setting up a straw man that you can knock down, since you can’t deal with the issues as they are presented!

THE KINGDOM IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT CONDITIONAL. It is only delayed. The land promises to Abraham (mentioned by Amos, in spite of your ommissions!) were not conditional! The unilateral ratification of the Abrahamic Covenant is a classic study of ancient suzerainty treaties!

Was Jesus the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world or not? What if Adam had not sinned? What if Judas had not betrayed Jesus? God knew the evil that men and nations would do from eternity past. He chose to include these things in His plan to the degree that His ultimate plan will be perfectly accomplished in the world. I am VERY BIG on the sovereignty of God, please do not imply otherwise!

God is to say they will not reject Him again. Deut 30:1-10; Jer 31:31-34 (more on that passage in a minute). Paul says they will not reject Him again. Zech 12:10 says they won’t reject Him again. You may set up all the straw men you want, God’s Word will stand, they won’t.

It was not conditional the first time! The timing was, the certainty was not. In fact, the OT clearly previews their rejection of their Messiah, but they did not believe that any more than they believed the prophecies of His lowly birth, humility, and suffering. Didn’t fit their theology.

YOU DO NOT SEE PHYSICAL SEED IN GENESIS 12? What kind of seed to you see in Genesis 12:7; 13:15,16; 15:3,5,13,18; 16:10; 17:7,8,9,10,12,19? Need I go on? In fact SEED is just about ALL I see, but not quite. Oh, look, there we are, “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed ” (12:3). Not near as much space as the “seed” of Abraham, but we are there, praise GOD!

I will deal with Gal 3 under my post to DeafPT. But I guess if you want to, you guys could overwhelm me. I can’t type as fast as three of you!

Oh, I get it alright. I have spent many HUNDREDS of HOURS reading the postmil/amil covenant theology works of Ladd, Gentry, Chilton, DeMar and others. My disagreement with your position is not based on ignorance. On the contrary, it is based on INFORMATION! I am informed, therefore I reject your Israel/Church argument.

The name/word Israel or Israelites appears 79 times in the NT. IN NONE OF THOSE IS THE TERM APPLIED TO THE CHURCH! LOOK ‘EM UP. I dealt with the closest one on another thread, no response, or at least no rebuttal. Agreement and amens from my camp, silence from yours. Bring it up here and I’ll exegete the passage again.

WHEN DO THEY GET IT, MILLENNIUM, REV 20. Go back and look at the Amos 9 verses you left out!!! Want them again. You did not address them.

This part parallels SOME of the experience of the church, but when the New Covenant is fulfilled, Sunday School will be unnecessary! READ THE REST OF THE PASSAGE!!!
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Brother, we ain’t there yet. Yes, the experience of the church in some way parallels the New Covenant. But in many ways it does not.

OH, and as long as we are here, “the seed of Israel” “a nation before me forever”. Sounds like physical progeny to me.

I have learned a lot from JM. He is one of the TOP 3 in my personal book. However, he is not THE BOOK. Am not sure of your source re the JM comment. But, I do have most of his works. Would like to read it in context. Can also access many of his sermons on-line. Even so, I do disagree with his understanding of the relationship between the Church and Israel at some points. BUT DO NOT MAKE IT SOUND LIKE HE SUPPORTS AMILLENNIALISM! His views of Revelation, the Rapture, and Millennium are not the same as yours!

Romans is not a fulfillment of Jer 31! You quoted Rom 11:25 from my post, deal with my argument from that passage. You glossed over it!

OK, I will still deal with your citation of Rom 2:13-15. Paul is writing about Gentiles who did not have the Law of Moses. The Jews had it, Gentiles did not. So, what about the fact that sometimes the actions of the Gentiles runs parallel to the Law of Moses? Paul says, they have the Law of God written in their hearts! These are not Believers! These are the heathen who by their actions sometimes demonstrate a knowledge of the MORAL LAW OF GOD!!!

I think it is just wonderful the way you can key in on one phrase from Jer 31 and ignore that it was written to the ones who had broken the Mosaic Covenant. Nice how you ignore that these will be His people and He will be their God. DON’T SEE ANY OF THAT IN ROMANS 2. Only that the Gentiles occasionally demonstrate an awareness of the Moral Law of God which predates the Mosaic Law. (OK, I am just waiting for the argument that the 10 ARE the Moral Law of God. I addressed that on the Lord’s day thread, I think.)


Sorry, just could not resist the Grasshopper– bug line. And yes, I could tell, my post bugged him as well.

 

I am not confused; its the Darbyites who are confused. You are also confused about what all premillenialists believe.

The promise is related to this earth but Revelation 20:11 tells us: And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. So how is the promise going to be fulfilled? Also the promise in Revelation 21 is to the Bride of Jesus Christ, no one else.

As for the gifts and calling you have to understand to whom they are made. Also it is incorrect to call God's covenant with Abraham unconditional. God doesn't make unconditional covenants.

As for your statement "There is NOTHING anywhere in the Bible to indicate this promise has been revoked." what about the statement of Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof?

 

I have always wondered how people could be so messed up in their theology and you have explained this so well, Mr. Prince, & I thank you.

That being said, the glorious truths in your magnificent post & the articulate manner in which you presented these old glorious truths was quite inspiring! </font>[/QUOTE]The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Teatament nor vice versa as the Darbyites do!

There are numerous places in the New Testament where new meaning is given to Old Testament prophecy.

 

I don't have to explain it. You explain it. Was Joshua wrong, confused, or just lying. I believe he was writing what God told him to write, don't you?

 

I do fully agree with you that there are numerous places in the New Testament where new meaning is given to Old Testament prophecy.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THE NT TURNS THE OT ON ITS EAR!!! IF THE NT REVERSES A CLEAR PROMISE OF THE OT, THEN THE OT IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

THE OT WAS FOUNDATIONAL FOR THE TEACHING OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES. NO WAY THEIR TEACHING REVERSED AN UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT! THE CONDITIONAL COVENANT OF THE LAW, YES. THE UNCONDITIONAL COVENANTS WITH ABRAHAM, THE JEWS REGARDING THE LAND, AND DAVID – NO WAY.

SHOW IT TO ME IN THE BOOK!!! Don’t just label me a “Darbyite” and move on. Let’s deal with it from the Word of God. I’m up for it.

 

Actually, if you check a Scofield Bible he practically ignores Mark, Luke, and John. I assume its because they don't fit into his erroneous doctrine. He along with all other Darbyite writers ignore John 17:4.

 

Oldreg,

Yep, I believe he was writing the Word of God. But, when portions of the Word of God seem to disagree, we must deal with it from a textual standpoint. Not just pick the part we want and ignore the rest.

God gave them ALL the land. They inhabited a good portion of it. They did not have control of all of it. Even if they did have control and possess all of the land, they are promised "everlasting possession"!

 

OK Charles and Oldreg,

Explain Matt 10:5-7:
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matt 15:24
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


AND, SHOW ME WHERE SCOFIELD SAID IT WAS NOT FOR US. GIVE ME EITHER SCRIPTURE WHERE THE NOTE IS, OR PAGE NUMBER.

Does nobody understand what is meant by “ETHICAL DEBATE”? I would like to look at his words in context.

I think it is more likely that He said it was not a promise “to” us. All of the Word of God is for us. But not all of the promises of the Word of God are “TO” us.

 

I posted the link.

I challenge you again to find the word genea and tell me where it means race in Matthew or any other book for that matter. Then find the word genos and see how it is used.

No WE don't have a problem YOU do.

So all the lecturing you gave to DPT concerning rules of interpretation go out the window. So much for context and audience relevence.

Really? Are you consistent with this interpretation or does it only apply to prophetic statements. Shall we look at all these words in the NT and use your definition? When God said something was not near in the OT did He mean slow?

Acts 22:18And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

So he can leave whenever he wishes, just whenever he decides to leave do it quickly. Not a statement of time but one of manner?

Rev 21:10And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

What kind of word games will you play with this? He is told not to seal it up. Why? Because when these thing happen 2000+ years from now they will happen quickly? Please.

Dan 12: 9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Why was Daniel told these things were sealed till the time of the end? I guess using your interpretation it would because they would happen slowly.

I see, so when Jesus comes He will be sprinting. I'm sure that is how the Jews understood it.

Sorry, I didn't get the chance to go to a good Tennessee seminary.

I'm sure with your vast seminary knowledge you understand much of the imagery of Revelation is found in the OT. I'm also sure you know it was not literal in the OT either.
So much for letting the OT help us interpret the NT. So is Is. 13:10 literal?

So you believe Luke 21 is describing the events of AD70?

He is quoting Ps 118:26. Verses 22 and 26 give us the time.( Hint: New Covenant)

But what about Matt 23:36 do you associate that with the events of AD70? If so, it is the same genea as found in Chapter 24.

Israel became the Church. There was great relief from the persecuting Jews at that time.

Remember though, you only use that method when it supports your position otherwise its out the window.

Verses 13-15 are connected to the time restraints of verses 11&12. You can interpret 13-15 any way you wish but you must keep it in the correct time frame.
Why did James quote this? Was he just filling space? There is no other reason for quoting it except to declare its fulfillment. You seem to want to put a gap between verses 12 and 13. Did verses 12 and 13 occur when James quoted them?

I’m not afraid of dealing with anything. I have nothing to run from. I care only about the truth. Other than the “last days” occuring in the 1st century what would you like me to respond to?

So any OT prophecy indicating the Kingdom would be established during the time of the Roman Empire would be false in your view?

Scripture please. Where does it say the timing was conditional?

You might want to read Zech 12:10 again and compare it with John 19:37. Unless of course you believe some future people living in modern Israel are really the ones who pierced Jesus.

Wonderful, I spent my first 40 years being indoctrinated with Scofields fantasy. What ever happened to that Russian Bear Hal Lindsey promised?

OK!!!!!!!!!

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
__
Sounds like the Holy Spirit will teach us. No need for prophets.

for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Are you still waiting on this? I’m not.

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Hmmmmm I believe it is your view that tells us all these things will be destroyed.

But only till God destroys this old heaven and earth to make room for the new one.

How many nations does God have in your view?
I Peter2: 9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light

No I didn’t. You have your heretics confused.

 

If you will bother to check the Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary you will see that "a couple of" means "more than two but not many".

 

Darn
i hate it when i use the WRONG dictionary

 

I do fully agree with you that there are numerous places in the New Testament where new meaning is given to Old Testament prophecy.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THE NT TURNS THE OT ON ITS EAR!!! IF THE NT REVERSES A CLEAR PROMISE OF THE OT, THEN THE OT IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

THE OT WAS FOUNDATIONAL FOR THE TEACHING OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES. NO WAY THEIR TEACHING REVERSED AN UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT! THE CONDITIONAL COVENANT OF THE LAW, YES. THE UNCONDITIONAL COVENANTS WITH ABRAHAM, THE JEWS REGARDING THE LAND, AND DAVID – NO WAY.

SHOW IT TO ME IN THE BOOK!!! Don’t just label me a “Darbyite” and move on. Let’s deal with it from the Word of God. I’m up for it. </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say the New Testament turned the Old Testament on its ear? Those are your words not mine.

Where does Scripture say that the covenant with Abraham was unconditional?

What does Paul mean when he states in Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.? Seems like Paul is writing that the promises were made to Abraham and Jesus Christ.

Why is it the those who follow Darby insist on interpreting Scripture literally but deny the literal interpretation of Galatians 3:26-29:
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And Ephesians 2:13-22:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

If the Gentiles through Jesus Christ were "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" that must mean that the Saints and the household of God [the Church] predated the incarnation. That this is true is also shown in Pauls discussion of the olive trees in Romans 11.

 

Then they will have everlasting possession of something that doesn't exist since Revelation 21:1 tells us "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

 

Grasshopper,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. For the next 4-5 days I will be extremely busy and do not expect to be able to give the response that your comments merit. Please be patient and I will post more around the first of next week (deo volente).

For now, yes I do believe Isa 13:10 is to be taken literally. At various points in history, large volcanic eruptions have “blacked out” the sun and the stars for days at a time. I have no difficulty believing that the hand of the Creator could manage it as well.

Yes, I do understand that the tachos word group often indicates not just speed of the action but immediacy of the action. I also understand that the Revelation passages are not the only passages that speak of suddenness with the expectation of soonness (new word). Yet, some of these other passages are clearly connected with the second coming to the earth, not some apocalyptic judgement upon one city and nation. For me, it is much easier to understand the usage in the sense of suddenness than to allegorize the bulk of John’s final work.

If you take the allegorical principle as foundational to the interpretation of Bible prophecy, Jesus did not need to be born in Bethlehem, any of the small towns “like” Bethlehem would have done just fine. The fact that there are some obvious allegories and figures in all of Scripture, not just apocalyptic writings, do not give warrant to fanciful interpretations that are totally inconsistent with the rest of the Word of God.

Luke 21 was not completely fulfilled in AD 70, I neither said that, nor implied that. If our dialogue is to be of any value, please do not mis-state my position. I am making great effort to represent your position fairly in my restatement, please show me the same courtesy. “The days of vengeance” were certainly fulfilled in AD 70. That does not mean that there will be no more vengeance upon the nation that crucified their Lord and God, but it does mean that this portion of the Words of Jesus related to AD 70. Verse 28 is totally inconsistent with an AD 70 fulfillment. That was my point. Sorry, if I did not explain in sufficient detail. Sometimes I assume that the audience is tracking with me, when in fact, I may have left some of them behind. My apologies.

Not sure if my undergrad alma mater was just slammed or not. Did not complete my grad degree in TN, but in FL. College and Seminary were not end points for study, they were but the most basic preparations for a lifetime of study. What I learned in college, at least what I remember from college, comprises but a small percentage of the limited learning I have managed to accumulate and retain heretofore.

Why must you keep Amos 9:13-15 in the same time frame? Talk about “wooden literalness” (as some on your side of the fence do)! There are numerous prophecies that are fulfilled over many centuries! If you fail to understand this basic principle, no wonder you miss some other things as well. I DO NOT ACCEPT your forced time constraints! For Cts it is easier to ignore the clear wording and insist upon allegorizing than it is to bend your theology to the words of Scripture. Unbelievable.

Just a few thoughts. Again, very busy for rest of the week. Will give more substance next week.

Oh, and I may have my “posters” confused, but I do not consider you a heretic, anymore than I do Ladd, Sproul, or many of the other deceased or living preterists.

OLDREG, DITTO.