Shortly Come to Pass and the Error of Preterism - Page 4

mfblume · #31 05-26-2007, 01:11 AM

Bro Strange said...

Quote:

Let us look at the Greek word “en” translated in some places into our English word, “Shortly.”

[...]

So we immediately see that the word does not necessarily mean that it is concurrent in time to any given event, nor is it necessarily subsequent in time to any prophecy. But, we shall see that the use of the word denotes a state or a condition of affairs, which in this case has to do with the state of spiritual affairs of the church to whom the letter was written…all of it from Rev. 1 to Rev. 22.

[...]

The word is found in many, many places throughout the new testament and has no reference to time at all. Matthew 1:18 tells us that Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. The term, “with child” comes from the same Greek word found in Rev. 1:1 which is interpreted in English as “shortly.” It denotes a state of affairs with Mary. In this case, she is in a state of pregnancy.

That is entirely incorrect. The word EN is not the issue. EN IS NOT TRANSLATED AS SHORTLY. EN TACHOS is. The combination of the proposition EN, which means "IN" or "WITH", and the term TACHOS is the issue. EN is not translated as shortly. EN TACHOS is translated as shortly.

Your error is similar to saying that the "WITH" in the phrase "WITH CHILD" does not mean "WITH CONCERN".

SDG · #32 05-26-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have a Greek Scholar who is a witness, though!

Perhaps that is the only way a Greek Scholar can assess the verse since they know what the term means.

I'm not sure ....both sources seem to fall back on 2 Peter 3:8 as a crutch ..... to suggest that this is not man's time but God's time ....

mfblume · #33 05-26-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I'm not sure both sources seem to fall back on 2 Peter 3:8 as a crutch ..... to suggest that this is not man's time but God's time ....

I agree. Think about it. God is talking to man, after all.

In my opinion, 2 Peter 3:8 is not saying God's time is thousand years in calculation of man's timing being a day. It is saying that no matter how long a promise takes to be fulfilled, whether it be a day's duration or a thousand years' duration, lengthening of time does not diminish God's ability to fulfill that promise. Longer periods of time do not make his promises less likely to be fulfilled. THAT is what Peter meant.

SDG · #34 05-26-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree. Think about it. God is talking to man.

A powerful argument ... In another case we see an angel using man's time as the measure .....

Act 22:18 KJV+ And2532 saw1492 him846 saying3004 unto me,3427 Make haste,4692 and2532 get1831 thee quickly1722, 5034 out of1537 Jerusalem:2419 for1360 they will not3756 receive3858 thy4675 testimony3141 concerning4012 me.1700

Praxeas · #35 05-26-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

So the Strong's definition says that when EN prefixes TACHOS, it is "IN (EN) HASTE (TACHOS)"

We get TACHOMETER from the greek term TACHOS. SPEED IN TIME ...

Prepositions MODIFY a noun a verb or an adjective. The word is translated in itself as "IN" oir "BY"

Or "with"...with haste must come to pass

mfblume · #36 05-26-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Or "with"...with haste must come to pass

Agreed. Either way, TIME is essentially the issue.

SDG · #37 05-26-2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree. Think about it. God is talking to man, after all.

In my opinion, 2 Peter 3:8 is not saying God's time is thousand years in calculation of man's timing being a day. It is saying that no matter how long a promise takes to be fulfilled, whether it be a day's duration or a thousand years' duration, lengthening of time does not diminish God's ability to fulfill that promise. Longer periods of time do not make his promises less likely to be fulfilled. THAT is what Peter meant.

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 ...

mfblume · #38 05-26-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

I think it fits with my thought. Since greater length of time does not diminish God's ability to fulfill a promise, Time is of no concern to God. He only uses it and refers to it for our sakes. So He must speak from OUR perspective. This actually disproves the thought that God assesses things from, and speaks to us from the persective of, HIS TIME, since time and Himself are not mutually necessary.

SDG · #39 05-26-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think it fits with my thought. Since greater length of time does not diminish God's ability to fulfill a promise, Time is of no concern to God. He only uses it and refers to it for our sakes. So He must speak from OUR perspective. This actually disproves the thought that God assesses things from, and speaks to us from the persective of, HIS TIME, since time and Himself are not mutually necessary.

I tend to agree.

mfblume · #40 05-26-2007, 01:26 AM

Calling it a night. Good night, all.