Shortly Come to Pass and the Error of Preterism

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Calling it a night. Good night, all.

Good nite ... Elder.

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I have a different take ... God does not need time ... it's a manly measure .... he lives in eternity ....he's from the beginning to the end ... the all in all ...

That's correct, God does not need time, the Bible is not written to God, it's written for man. And it's written in a way that we can understand. So when it says shortly, it's not in God's time, but in our time.

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Revelationist...

Did you read carefully the first post of this thread?

Yep, trying to clarify if the same holds true for all these scriptures. Because if it does, then the Bible has to be consistant, and this is what it must mean everywere these words apear. Right?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Revelationist

That's correct, God does not need time, the Bible is not written to God, it's written for man. And it's written in a way that we can understand. So when it says shortly, it's not in God's time, but in our time.

Why did Peter say verse 8? Almost 2 thousand years later we are still waiting for the coming of the Lord in the clouds!

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

Originally Posted by mfblume

"EN" is not the word in question. "Tachos" is. And EN is only a preoposition that prefixes the term TACHOS which makes the english word IN HASTE in the sense of time. You are wrong from the very start, Bro Strange. You are taking the term EN and definining it and finding how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament. But that is totally incorrect. You must take the COMBINATION OF "EN TACHOS" and THEN find the ways the word is used. So your entire argument is severely flawed to begin with.

Again, more flawed thinking. But, let us look at the whole of the thought without trying to twist the Word into some presupposed theory that demands a rapid succession in time. It is simply NOT there.

The greek is actually "EN TACHOS". And every time those two terms are used together, with preoposition EN prefixing TACHOS, we find HASTE in the sense of TIME.

Here are ALL the places the two terms are used together. EN is designated by Strong's number 1722, and TACHOS is Strongs' number 5034. We must find instances of the greek term where BOTH WORDS ARE INDICATED by 1722 and 5034. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

Notice that in Rev 1:1 as well as all the cases of the same terms used that I indicated before, you read the TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER 1722 and 5034. THAT IS the necessary combination we require in order to CORRECTLY assess the meaning of SHORTLY. What Brpo Strange has done was to take ONLY THE PREFIX and try to find how it is used, when the very definition of the term SHORTLY says the ter,m "EN" is only a preoposition!!!
Bro Strange ONLY TOOK THE PREFIX "EN" from the entire term "EN TACHOS".

Revelation 1:1 uses the greek terms "en tachei" (TWO TERMS TOGETHER) and translates the COMBINATION OF THEM as "SHORTLY". It is severe error to only take the preposition "EN" and neglect to maintain the term "TACHOS".

Here are ALL the verses in the entire New Testament that use the COMBINATION of the two greek terms that Bro Strange failed to realize are the only verses we can use.



When you said that Mary's pregnancy was associated with the term EN, you SHOWED YOUR ENTIRE ERROR OF REASONING! "EN" IS NOT THE TERM IN AND OF ITSELF THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. WE ARE DISCUSSING "EN TACHOS". I do not think you deceived anyone, as you claim I did, but you are severealy unaware of the Greek preposition EN only PREFIXING TACHOS. So in order to properly represent the meaning of the words SHORTLY, you cannot just take EN, but must take the COMBINATION OF "EN TACHOS" together. AND IN EVERY CASE it is a matter of TIME ALONE that is the issue.

There are no other words in the entire New Testament that use the same combination of EN and TACHOS together than what I have shown above. And anyone can see quite plainly that in each and every case of the COMBINATION OF TERMS, the sense is most definitely TIME.

TRY AGAIN.

Again, you avoid the obvious.

I perhaps should have enlarged on the whole of the definition of EN and TACHOS together but I really didn't think that it would have been neccessary in light of the OBVIOUS that I addressed. You consistently take things out of context and address only bits and pieces that you can twist to mislead others with. It is really amazing that anyone would follow after that, even with your writing gifts.

Am I the ONLY one that can see through your ERROR? If so, I will alone continue to address it.

The exact same words used by John in Rev. 1:1 are again used by Jesus in the very last chapter of the bible:

shortly [1722] en
(with Strongs #) [5034] tachos
be done. [1096] ginomai

"En" signifies STATE. "Tachos" signify speed. "Ginomai" signify what must happen in history.

Your insistence on Rev. 1:1 as what follows in Revelation must then come to pass shortly must also include those things mentioned in the entirety of the book including all of Revelation 22 as well.

Rev 22:6 ¶ And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Your insistence upon a quick speed of time in transition of all things in regard to some parts of Revelation as you see it, i.e. Roman Armies, the old city of Jerusalem, Nero, Titus and all of that which you claim came to pass in 70AD as fulfillment of the Revelation prophecy insisting upon the idea that the "time is at hand," or "shortly come to pass," in this regard is a serious flaw in spiritual thinking, without including the literal coming of Jesus with your same definition.

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Can it get any plainer? Spiritual STATE is the subject of Revelation and NOT NERO, 70AD and the old NATURAL city of Jerusalem.

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

Using your own natural reasoning, then it is obvious that everything prophesied in Revelation has already happened including Revelation 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Before I get back to my proposition found in my first post, please explain how the scriptures can also use "en tachos ginomai," in Revelation 22 and then YOU state that Jesus has NOT literally returned.

I will maintain my position that the crux of the whole matter is found in the preposition "EN," which transcends the natural, carnal, material, world and its events, but is rather as "EN" indicates, a matter of SPIRITUAL STATE....

For some reason, you will deny the obvious.

[Digging4Truth]

Brother Strange...

Of course you will, likely, deem me as biased as I am already a partial preterist but the debate so far really has to go to Brother Blume.

I read your first post and it made me go Hmmmmmmmmmm...but Brother Blume's response was succinct and thorough and did point out very well the error of even speaking of en without tachos and I noticed that you never touched on the list of scriptures he gave that contain the term pair "en tachos".

That is my observation of the posts so far (and that is all it is... my observation... so don't feel any need to waste thread space talking about one persons opinion of the discussion so far)

But the discussion so far has left me with a question for each of the main participants in this discussion.

Brother Strange
Could you make a post that deals directly with the plethora of "en tachos" examples given and their context in the rest of scripture versus the context you feel is demonstrated in Revelation. Also if you could touch on why you feel that the meaning of "en tachos" is different in Revelation than it is in the rest of the Bible. Thanks

Brother Blume
Brother Strange has brought up one good point here and I am interested to see what your response is. Your post on "en tachos" was very good and it demonstrated how the combination of those terms, thoughout the Bible, means quickly, speedily etc. Brother Strange pointed out that "en tachos" does appear in chapters that you deem as unfulfilled. That does seem pretty inconsistent and I am interested to see what your response will be to this dilemma. I can think of several "angles" one could take but the disaster in those thoughts are that whatever one applies to "en tachos" in the last few chapters of Revelation can also be applied to the appearance in the first chapter. I am interested to see what you have to say on this subject.

Revelationist
Is this true that you are a full preterist? If so I would be interested in hearing a little bit from you on those last remaining chapters of Revelation that partial preterists deem as unfulfilled. I am, admittedly, completely ignorant on where full preterists go in their beliefs that partial preterist don't other than the simple knowledge that partial preterists believe that chapters 19-22 are not yet fulfilled.

It might be best, as to maintain the integrity and intent of this thread, that you start a new thread to answer this question though. If you do take the time to cover this then I would greatly appreciate it.

Also... if you are not full preterist then please diregard my question.

Originally Posted by Revelationist

Yep, trying to clarify if the same holds true for all these scriptures. Because if it does, then the Bible has to be consistant, and this is what it must mean everywere these words apear. Right?

That is right.

The Word is consistent. It does not imply anything that it does not mean. There are no Roman armies seen in Revelation. There is no Nero, no Titus, no destruction of the old city of Jerusalem, no, not even in Ch. 11. No city of Rome and no destruction of an earthly temple can be found in Revelation anywhere...NOT THE EVEN MENTION OF 70AD.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Brother Strange...

Of course you will, likely, deem me as biased as I am already a partial preterist but the debate so far really has to go to Brother Blume.

If you are already a Partial Preterist, I can understand how you would be biased. I appreciate your honesty here. I can only pray that you will not become cemented in that doctrine as so many have already become. There is a spirit involved in this doctrine that consumes away the soul, in my opinion from studying this for so long. It happens so often, when people becomes wraped up in the spirit of this doctrine, they become very much "in your face" with it. That spirit, not the doctrine itself, got the likes of Larry Smith and others defrocked.

I read your first post and it made me go Hmmmmmmmmmm...but Brother Blume's response was succinct and thorough and did point out very well the error of even speaking of en without tachos and I noticed that you never touched on the list of scriptures he gave that contain the term pair "en tachos".

I should have dealt with the whole but I didn't think it neccessary to deal with the obvious. Sometimes you have to address the obvious as well.

Brother Strange
Could you make a post that deals directly with the plethora of "en tachos" examples given and their context in the rest of scripture versus the context you feel is demonstrated in Revelation. Also if you could touch on why you feel that the meaning of "en tachos" is different in Revelation than it is in the rest of the Bible. Thanks

See my last response to Bro. Blume above, given just a few moments ago.

Anyway, bro Blume made this statement:

Here are ALL the verses in the entire New Testament that use the COMBINATION of the two greek terms that Bro Strange failed to realize are the only verses we can use.

But, he did not leave any scriptures and certainly not the one that I cited in Rev. 22.

If he is consistent with the interpretation that he insist upon, he will have to state flatly that Jesus has returned as seen in Rev. 19, that the White Throne Judgment is past, that all prophecies subsequent to the return of Jesus is also past.

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

There is a spirit involved in this doctrine that consumes away the soul, in my opinion from studying this for so long. It happens so often, when people becomes wraped up in the spirit of this doctrine, they become very much "in your face" with it. That spirit, not the doctrine itself, got the likes of Larry Smith and others defrocked.

I can't believe I'm reading this from you...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

That is right.

The Word is consistent. It does not imply anything that it does not mean. There are no Roman armies seen in Revelation. There is no Nero, no Titus, no destruction of the old city of Jerusalem, no, not even in Ch. 11. No city of Rome and no destruction of an earthly temple can be found in Revelation anywhere...NOT THE EVEN MENTION OF 70AD.

Elder Strange you are correct and the problem with their interpetation of "shortly come to pass" is that most scholars place the writing of Revelations around 90 ad TWENTY years beyond the so-called fulfilment of this prophecy. The quote many sources to seem they have scholarship but when investigated ALL their sources are quoting one source. The MAJORITY of scholarship has the book written AFTER the event took place. So it should have read according to these folks "they have ALREADY came to pass."
Next "this generation" is speaking of the JEWISH RACE not a particular time. Jesus is simply saying the Jewish RACE will be in existance UNTIL Jesus comes.