Shortly Come to Pass and the Error of Preterism

[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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

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.

Oh wow. This is something else. I cannot believe you will not admit that use of a PREPOSITION, such as "IN" is all you need to make your point. You WAFFLED and you know it.

I avoid the obvious? Please elucidate on how I have avoided the obvious by showing you that YOU CANNOT USE A PREPOSITION all by itself to prove your point.

You said EN is translated SHORTLY. EN is NOT translated "shortly" any more than "WITH" is translated "WITH CONCERN." And there is nothing OBVIOUS about removing the all important term TACHOS. Wow, again.

You consistently take things out of context and address only bits and pieces that you can twist to mislead others with.

Is everyone actually reading this?

This is unbelievable!

Saying that I am taking things out of context when I accuse you of riding on a MERE preposition and saying you are WRONG when you do not take the combination of the preposition EN and the word TACHOS to correclty ascertain what SHORTLY means.

I have never seen such stubborn refusal to accept the obvious.

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.

That is because you must be the only one who does not know what a preposition is.

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.

GINOMAI is translated as PASS in Rev 1:1. It is ADDED to the term "EN TACHOS" to further clarify his point. EN TACHOS is ONE ENGLISH WORD, "shortly", while GINOMAI is translated as three, "COME TO PASS". When it is used in Rev GINOMAI is translated as "BE DONE".

This brings us into another argument altogether. It is whether or not interpreting the reference to be the coming of wrath in AD70 can be understood as correct in light of the belief that the great white throne judgment and the coming down to earth of the New City is still our future.

So which argument are you going to deal with now? The idea of whether or not SHORTLY has nothing to do with time or the argument that it does deal with time and cannot allow for elements of Rev 20 through 22 to be our future?

Do not ask me how SHORTLY can be a TIME issue by challenging whether or not it first the ide aof Rev 20 through 22 being our future, but rather FIRST SETTLLE THE MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT SHORTLY IS A TIME ISSUE.

Once again, you said EN means SHORTLY. That is totally wrong. Shortly is not EN. It is EN TACHOS. Brother, you were totally wrong in saying a preposition means SHORTLY. Just admit it.

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.

Still changing arguments. I wil deal with THAT issue after you deal with what you started in saying SHORTLY has nothing to do with time. And you say I avoid the OBVIOUS??????

Cease removing yourself from the glaring error you made in saying SHORTLY does NOT DEAL WITH TIME.

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.

All your masks of descriptions of how plain your idea is and how wrong I am does not change the fact that you are wrong in using a preposition, that means IN or WITH or BY or AGAINST and saying it means SHORTLY.

Rev 22:10-12 is STILL speaking about a coming in wrath in AD70.

It is not a spiritual STATE. It is a STATE OF TIME as the term is used in every single instance of the New Testament. I listed them all. STATE OF TIME is the ONLY translation of the terms EN anc TACHOS.

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.

Wrong.

Revelation was concentrating upon the issue close to John's day. The OPENNESS of the sealed book, disallowed to be sealed, in Rev 22:10 in light of Daniel's command only 400 years earlier to SEAL the book because the time was for the END proves that the events had to occur less that hundreds of years, let alone thousands. And since there is nothing wrong with referring to some implicated events that would occur thousands of years later in reflection upon the destruction of OLD Jerusalem, while maintaining the crux of the wrath was definitely to occur AT HAND. What is wrong with leaving the point of the wrath of God in the first century in destroying the OLD Jerusalem and mentioning the FATE OF THE NEW? It is like a contrast. the issue at hand was Jerusalem's demise. And God simply showed John the OTHER JERUSALEM, that is THE NEW, and noted how it will continue for eternity. It changes nothing about the main overall issue being wrath which would come to pass in the first century.

Call is stupid and all the other adjectives you seem to always muster up, but it is reasonable, anyway.

Again: Christ's coming in Rev 22:12 is speaking of the coming of destruction in AD70. The context shows the New Jerusalem completed in our future, and while mentioning this, John wrote that Jesus would come shortly in destruction from the time he wrote after simply mentioning all that would occur. He said, in effect, knowing about all the wrath of God against Israel and Jerusalem, and knowing that the NEW JERUSALEM is all that will remain, get ready and ensure you do not miss this, just as Matthew 24 warned the people of the AD70 destruction to not be left smiting one another and in drunkenness. You want to remain oustide that wrath and enjoy the UNENDING NEW JERUSALEM.

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.

Before you get back.... You would like to avoid that issue. That is the entire point of this thread topic! And you want to deal with other issues now .

And NOW you use TACHOS, finally, but have not yet admitted your error in riding upon a preposition.

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....

Because you are too stubborn to admit your error. The crux CAN NEVER BE A PREPOSITION. That is as silly as saying the entire crux of understanding what "IN TRUTH" means is the preoposition "IN". Meanwhile, the same meaning of the term "IN" can be used in the totally different phrase "IN CONCERN". How on earth can "IN" be the crux of the phrase "IN TRUTH" when the same preposition has nothing to do with "truth" when used in the phrase "IN CONCERN"?

For some reason, you will deny the obvious.

"For some reason..."

Bro Strange you beat all when you refuse to admit your glaring error.

Tacos are yummy.

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

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.

I looked it up in my Strongs and I fail to see where these to words mean anything but shortly...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Revelationist

I looked it up in my Strongs and I fail to see where these to words mean anything but shortly...

Maybe I missed it, but what is bro Strange saying it means or how it should be translated if not shortly?

[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?

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

Elder,

As you already know, there are a number of linchpins to the Preterist doctrine, that if pulled would cause the entire theory to collapse in a junk heap.

First of all, as you said, if it were anyway possible for them to prove against all odds that Revelation was written prior to 70AD, their argument would be over and lost.

The along with their misunderstanding and deliberate twisting of "shortly come to pass," "at hand," and "this geneation," they have effectively done away with major portions of the Bible, relegating it to a dust heap of archival irrelevance.

I get upset when I see such violence inflicted upon the Word of God

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

GENERATION is never used any where in the bible to denote a race. Any where. All you can do is say IN THIS ONE CASE of Matthew 24 it is. Meanwhile, you have NO other verse in which it is plainly so. SHOW ME WHERE IT USED UNDISPUTEDLY.

And concerning AD90, or 96 more correctly, all that these alleged scholars stand upon is Irenaeus' nutty time issue, who also said Jesus died at 50, which accusation Bro Strange once also tried to refute to no avail.

Of course the race will be in existence when Jesus comes! lol. Who said it would not? What news is that to the disciples standing there listening to Jesus? Who would have thought that would NOT occur? It is what is irrelevant.

Folks, ya gotta admit Bro Strange is taking a real whooping in this debate!