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

Much like the parting of the Red Sea. Presto, Divide-O! Magical!

Gal 6: 15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

 

No problem

This is a very important element of eschatology. In fact it is what led me to the preterist view. These are all historical events using apocalyptic language which you say, at least in Is 13:10, is literal. Review these and lets discuss them:

Fall of Babylon(539BC)
Is. 13: 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.
...13Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Judgement on Egypt(530BC)
Ez.32:7 And when I shall extinguish thee, I will cover the heavens, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord Jehovah.

Fall of Israel
Amos 8: 8 Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? yea, it shall rise up wholly like the River; and it shall be troubled and sink again, like the River of Egypt.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.

Judgement on Nineveh
Nahum 1

1 The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
2 Jehovah is a jealous God and avengeth; Jehovah avengeth and is full of wrath; Jehovah taketh vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt; and the earth is upheaved at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.

Judgement on Edom
Is. 34: 4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all their host shall fade away, as the leaf fadeth from off the vine, and as a fading leaf from the fig-tree.
5 For my sword hath drunk its fill in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Edom, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

Davids flight from the Anger of Saul
Ps.18: 4 The cords of death compassed me, And the floods of ungodliness made me afraid.
5 The cords of Sheol were round about me; The snares of death came upon me.
6 In my distress I called upon Jehovah, And cried unto my God: He heard my voice out of his temple, And my cry before him came into his ears.
7 Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations also of the mountains quaked And were shaken, because he was wroth.
8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, And fire out of his mouth devoured: Coals were kindled by it.
9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his hiding-place, his pavilion round about him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

You rule out the possibiility that the language was meant to be figurative in nature. What if it was meant to be figurative/metaphoric? Did God not use this type of language in the OT where much of the book of Revelation comes?

And if you take a strict literal approach you get some foolish interpretations as well. The question is not that the Bible uses literal and figurative language the question is when is each used.

Inconsistent according to who? As far as fanciful interpretation goes, do I need to start a list of those from the pre-mills I've heard my entire life?

That is why I asked in the form of a question. You need to be a little less sensitive if your going to survive on this board.
Besides verse 22 seems to sum it all up.

Why?

Why separate it? Seems the burden of proof is on you.

Hmm didn't you just say:
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.

Are you not holding to a "wooden literalism" in verses 13-15?

Would you include "near" and "at hand" as clear wording?

Very good. look forward to it.

 

I am not thinned skinned. Can handle it. Just trying to be polite. Had several college scholarship offers for intercollegiate debate. Some of this feels like old times. Was pre-law before surrendering to full time ministry and changing majors, schools, etc.

Can be quite intense in my style at times, yet will not generally resort to "name-calling".

HOWEVER, if your point is to make it look like you have won an argument, go ahead and mis-state my position, quote me out of context, set up straw men, etc. However, I was using those tactics quite effectively from my freshman to senior years of High School. Don't generally use them in preaching or teaching the Word, at least not by my own evaluation! Hah! Guess I could get back into the swing of "winning the point" if I had to (even after more than 30 years).

My point is that if this discourse is to serve any real practical value for either of us, we must both seek to understand the other's position rather than just reject it out of hand because it does not fit our own.

Picking up my son from Vanderbilt for Christmas break. Borrowed his laptop and web access for a few minutes. Later.

 

Here is what you said and what I said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This is an honest question, considering your statement. I have run across all kinds concerning the Olivet Discourse. Some say none of it is fulfilled some partly and some, such as myself, who say all has been fulfilled. I need to know in order to debate.

 

I don't understand your problem!!!!!!!!!

 

Hopper,

First, sorry for taking your question wrong. I read into the wording an assumption that my statement indicated some acceptance of preterism re the OD. I looking back, I projected more into your words than you said. I also realize that sometimes the reason I leave people behind is that I have fully processed the idea in my mind, but it never fully makes it out of my mouth or onto the page as the case may be.

I assumed that you are taking a full preterist position on most, if not all of the OD and most, if not all of Revelation. Am I assuming too much? The commentary I referenced is Days of Vengeance by David Chilton. This work contains some of the best arguments that I have seen for an early composition for Rev as well as some pretty strong arguments for the preterist position. Been several (2 or 3) since I read it. Will have to find my extensively marked up notes on the work for a brief refresher. It was the best overall that I have seen, was still not convinced.

Sorry, short writers bursts will be all for several days as already stated and graciously noted.

 

Old Reg,

If you think you have difficulty understanding my problem(s), you should talk to my wife and kids!

Tried to respond to both Charles Meadows and you in one post. Sorry for confusion.

 

Still is -

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/dcdv.pdf

 

Dodge this! The Apostle Paul said in Romans 9:6; For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

To whom were the promises made, National Israel or spiritual Israel? Who constituted true or spiritual Israel of the Old Testament? The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:28, 29:

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The above would also apply to the Jew under the New Covenant and also to the Gentile. The Apostle Paul tells us in Colossians 2:9-11

9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

 

Will deal with Rom 9-11 and the Israel = Church issue next week with a new thread.