Spiritual Interpretation....pt3

Too bad God could not cause one of those to fall upon the leader of NK!

 

How would you do this with a printed version or with knowledge of Hebrew & Greek ?
A simple word search for the word translated "generation"

Open the Blue letter Bible
Choose a verse with a key word, e.g.
Mat. 24:34 & click on tools/interlinear
note the word "generation" & Strong's number 1074 - γενεά
click on 1074
note the way the KJV translates genea - γενεά
note the various meanings
note the list of EVERY occurrence of γενεά in its context & the way it is translated.

Post an informed reply on the BB.

 

Maybe John of Japan could use the better lexicons for this, eh?

 

You know, full disclosure would have been helpful in regards to the article from the donkpreston.com website--which is from a Preterist website and by the owner of the website. Not only that, he completely misquotes Pentecost, who says no such thing as this article claims. (See Things to Come, p. 116 for the real quote.)

In fact, Pentecost goes on in the chapter to point out dispensationalist views which acknowledge New Covenant fulfillment in both the church and Israel. So the article is not just Preterist, but by a dishonest Preterist. Who knows what other quotes in the article are skewed and twisted.

As for the supposed article from conservativeonline.com, what's that all about? I can't find the article there, and furthermore, the website is in some other language (probably from Scandinavia).

 

That source would not be trustworthy...

 

I clearly gave you my interpretation of the place of scripture you referenced. Because you do not agree with it is not my problem. The interpretation you are promoting on this board absolutely requires you to believe the coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead are past already. After being asked multiple times to show otherwise, you have refused to do so.

The sixth seal is the arrival of the day of the Lord, "the great day of his wrath." I already told you that! You wanted to know if the language was literal or figurative to which I replied that it was probably more likely that it is both/and instead of either/or. The difference between you and I is that I believe this is future, and you believe it is past. Anyone interested in reading my responses may read them on the other thread along with the questions I asked you that you continue to refuse to answer. It is in the other thread for all to read. Stop using dishonesty as a smokescreen to avoid dealing with scripture meaningfully.

 

@Iconoclast @Covenanter

"Even such a writer as Whitby acknowledges, owing to the force of Luk_21:24; Jer_31:27-40, etc., such a restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Indeed, some even see that its unconditionality is asserted in various places; that they are restored not on account of their own holiness but to preserve the faithfulness of God; and that Israel being carefully distinguished from the Gentiles (as e.g. Isaiah 49, Marg. reading, etc.) must, in order to preserve the Divine arrangement, also be gathered. The application of passages relating to the earthly Jerusalem by Waggoner (Ref, of Age to Come) to the New Jerusalem, because the Old is cast out and the Son of the Free Woman is the heir, misapprehends the Barren Woman..., does not distinguish between the heir and the subject, unites things which God has separated, violates the promises of God to His own ancient city and people, and, in brief, ignores the inheritance of Christ, as David’s Son."

- George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop 111


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

@Iconoclast, regarding the new covenant:

"Then he adds (Heb_8:13), “For finding fault with them” (viz.: Mosaic), “He saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new”...“covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them out of Egypt,” etc. “In that He saith a new covenant, He hath made the first old.”...While the Sinaitic covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic, and yet, owing to the foreseen defection of the nation and to the necessity of securing a satisfactory remission of sin, it was in many of its provisions merely preparatory, and hence, when removed, must give place to that which introduced it. Here the Mosaic is called the first because under it the Theocratic government was first established, and the Abrahamic is designated the second or new because under it, when fulfilled, that government will be re-established and existing....Now that the Abrahamic covenant is alluded to in this quotation from Jer_31:31, etc., is evident... Unity of prediction requires this, for we have decided references to this renewed Abrahamic covenant, conjoined with the Davidic, being a distinguishing characteristic of, and fundamental to, the Messianic period, as e.g. Mic_7:9, Eze_16:60-63, Isa_55:3, etc. Indeed, many are the prophecies which assume that under the Messiah both the Abrahamic and the explanatory Davidic, shall be realized. As we shall have occasion hereafter to quote these largely, it is sufficient here to say that they not only specifically refer to it, but denominate it (hence it cannot be superseded) “an everlasting covenant” (which it must be, since its promises bring Salvation). This does not interfere, as the predictions themselves intimate, in allowing other and new arrangements under the reign of the Messiah, as e.g. a new dispensation, the ruler-ship of immortals, the renewal of the earth, etc. But the Bible still insists that these covenants are fundamental to all those things; that the dispensation, honor, privileges, glory, etc., enjoyed, are all the resultants of an existing and then realized Abrahamic-Davidic covenant-the Abrahamic being the foundation of the others."

- George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Proposition 50,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

@Iconoclast, @kyredneck, @Covenanter

We have to remember that, from 33AD, until 70AD, the Jerusalem temple was still erected and these early Christians thought the great tribulation to be underway very soon.

"This repentance, over against Ernesti and others, is positively covenanted to them, Isa_44:22-23; Rom_11:26-27; Isa_59:19-21; Jer_31:2-3, etc. The inchoate fulfillment of Joe_2:28, etc., as described in Act_2:17, etc., is no impediment but a confirmation of our view, because the application of Joel to certain events, miraculous and astounding in their nature, not only indicates them as typical or an earnest of a future realization (Prop. 170), but affords a positive assurance that the entire prophecy as it stands shall surely be fulfilled. In Joel it is connected (1) with the terrible day of the Lord, time of vengeance; (2) with the bringing back again “the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem”; (3) with the recovery of my “heritage Israel” “scattered among the nations”; (4) with the Coming of the Lord, the harvest, the complete overthrow of God’s enemies, the dwelling of God (as He once did as a ruler) in Zion, the blessedness of the nation, the then holiness of Jerusalem, the continued and everlasting prosperity of the people and of Jerusalem"

- George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom Prop 113


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In the absence of an informed reply I will continue to use Strong's numbers in conjunction with the Blue letter Bible to establish inspired word usage.

Ad hominem attacks on Strong are being used to avoid answering Scriptural arguments.

 

Be very careful. This post is doing semantics by any definition.

 

"Ad hominem attack on Strong..."??? Are you kidding me? Simply because his work is old and out of date, as all Greek teachers know, you call pointing that fact out, "ad hominem"??? If you must, call it an attack on his work, not on the man himself.

Oh, and by the way, with this post you are doing semantics again. Just sayin'.

 

I just want to get something straight here. You have said that you are not KJV Only. The radicals in that camp say the KJV is an inspired translation. Are you saying with this post that you agree with that? Or, the standard evangelical position is that the Bible is inspired in the original languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Is that what you believe?

 

I would appreciate a reply. Neither a printed version, nor knowledge of the languages can do that simple search I can do using Strong with the Blue letter Bible. Many translations are available with the BLB.

 

Your problem is that, though you claim it is wrong to do semantics, you are doing it yourself and don't even understand what you are doing. Whatever I may say in answer to this post, you will claim that it's bogus, as you have in previous posts, even though I know the Greek and you don't, and I have access to many Greek reference books that you don't.

You are like many other Internet denizens in claiming to give information about the original languages though you've never studied them and don't understand either Greek syntax or semantics. That is simply ignorant. True Christian humility requires one to admit one's limitations. Will you do that, or continue to claim your superiority in Greek semantics because you know how to access a website?

 

What an insulting post from one who is incapable of making constructive posts or answering questions where you claim superior knowledge.

You must have been looking in a mirror when you adopted this as your signature:

 

How is this insulting?

The moderators have twice deleted personal attacks of yours towards me. And this post is also an insult, saying that I am "incapable of making constructive posts." So as you point the finger at me, several are pointing back at you.

We will see if the moderators call the post of mine you reference a personal attack. If they do, I will certainly apologize, but you insulting me as you call my post an insult--well, that won't do it.

P. S. Are you ready yet to admit you've been doing semantics?

 

You know what, folks? My pet peeve is people who pretend knowledge of the original languages having never studied them. So yeah, I call them ignorant, which simply means having no knowledge. It's not an insult, but a description. This situation is an unfortunate side effect of the Internet.

If you've never worked on electrical systems, would you claim to be an electrician? I have put hundreds of hours into studying for Greek classes, and have 19 credits in undergrad and grad Greek. I've taught Greek in two languages on and off since 1987--30 years now. I've spent 1000s of hours translating the New Testament from Koine Greek into Japanese. So I think I have a right to pontificate on NT Greek. Unless you are qualified in this area (some on the BB are), then silence is the better part of wisdom. Or as the proverb says, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Now, if you think that's bragging, it's not. It is simply giving my qualifications in this area, much like if one were to apply for an electrician's job, and give his job history and show his license. It would be bragging if I put forth how great a Greek scholar I am, what a good job I do as a teacher, etc. I won't do that. I'll just say, "Hey, I'm qualified." Are you?

 

Not really. My system still works fine.

But I'll bite. Please interpret spiritually for me. If the passage is not to be understood literally, what is the spiritual meaning of the stars?

Oh, for crying out loud. How many times do I have to say that grammatical-historical interpretation interprets figures of speech as figures of speech. Why can't you understand that?

Again, you've got to be kidding. You are putting the English meaning back into an ancient document. We call this anachronization. The Hebrew language is not the English language.

Concerning Idumea/Edom, I can interpret this with the grammatical-historical method and did so many years in Japan when I taught a course on Isaiah in a Bible School in Tokyo. But again, please interpret for me. What is Idumea in a spiritual interpretation?

Again, you are making the mistake of anachronization, reading the modern English meaning "stars" back into the Hebrew.

But really, again, please interpret for me. What is Idumea spiritually?

P. S. It is problematic for you to load up huge long passages, bold a few words, then sit back in triumph. It is then very difficult to make out exactly what you are trying to say. Please just make your point. I am perfectly capable of looking up the passages myself. I had to spend a lot of extra time on this post just to get my answer to work.