Do you think Revelations is enigmatic?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The "seed of a woman" defeating the serpent was a prophecy of a virgin birth. This prophecy was fulfilled thousands of years after the time of its original recipients. Certainly every generation who understood the prophecy (to at least some degree) thought that it might be fulfilled in their day, though it wasn't. I don't see an issue.

You aren't given any time specific language. No mention in Genesis that the time was near. Yet, you have that in the first chapter of the Revelation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You aren't given any time specific language. No mention in Genesis that the time was near. Yet, you have that in the first chapter of the Revelation.

Near is a relative term. To the LORD, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as but a day. Only the Father knows the times appointed. It is written in a manner to keep us all on our toes and in preparation.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I contend that it is about tampering with the text. Yes, translations have to reward things to get the meaning of the original text. But the original Greek text wasn't to be tampered with.

Let me see if I'm getting this right, you contend that it's not about misinterpreting what is written, but instead not altering the actual wording in the document. is that right?

So, the epistle should be placed under glass with an alarm system to keep out any typos, but those who read the unaltered text can believe anything they wish? Is that what you believe?

Isn't that confusion? Isn't God not the author of such a mess?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Near is a relative term. To the LORD, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as but a day. Only the Father knows the times appointed. It is written in a manner to keep us all on our toes and in preparation.

Relative to what? You have the Scripture being written so that it causes fear to be its motivating force. Isn't "fear" said to be a spirit that's not of God?

I agree that the original text should remain as written. But I also believe it was written so the righteous could become sons of light and know all things. Otherwise, how could John's epistle be entitled "The REVELATION of Jesus Christ"? How do you "reveal" something that is buried in confusion and mystery?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Let me see if I'm getting this right, you contend that it's not about misinterpreting what is written, but instead not altering the actual wording in the document. is that right?

Yes. Because if what is written is altered, false doctrine is a certainty. However, if the text is untampered with, regardless of one's understanding or lack of understanding the actual text remains unadulterated and the truth is always within reach for those who seek it.

So, the epistle should be placed under glass with an alarm system to keep out any typos, but those who read the unaltered text can believe anything they wish? Is that what you believe?

Whatever it takes.

Isn't that confusion? Isn't God not the author of such a mess?

Insuring textual integrity is essential for the development of proper doctrine.

Relative to what? You have the Scripture being written so that it causes fear to be its motivating force. Isn't "fear" said to be a spirit that's not of God?

There should be no fear of man, devil, or circumstance. However, we do well to fear God, who can destroy both body and soul in Hell, with a holy reverence.

However, the Revelation is a book of precious promise. One day all things will be under the direct Lordship of Jesus Christ.

I agree that the original text should remain as written. But I also believe it was written so the righteous could become sons of light and know all things. Otherwise, how could John's epistle be entitled "The REVELATION of Jesus Christ"? How do you "reveal" something that is buried in confusion and mystery?

I believe that even after it's all said and done, we'll find areas of Scripture, especially prophecy, wherein we were mistaken in our understanding and we'll stand in awe with how precise every fulfillment truly was.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. Because if what is written is altered, false doctrine is a certainty. However, if the text is untampered with, regardless of one's understanding or lack of understanding the actual text remains unadulterated and the truth is always within reach for those who seek it.

So, what's the issue? From what you said, you can teach Revelation with no problem, right?

Also, please reconcile why Peter said Paul's writings were hard to understand?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

So, what's the issue? From what you said, you can teach Revelation with no problem, right?

All one can do is teach the Revelation as is. One is free to speculate as a watchman on the wall who thinks they might see movement in the shadows. No man should declare with any certainty that their understanding is absolutely correct. We need all hands on deck. Like an intelligence agency that presents multiple scenarios, we do well to look at prophecy from every angle. I know brothers who firmly believe in keeping an eye on the EU for the emergence of the Beast. I've got my eyes on the Islamic State and the religious fervor among the Muslims regarding their long expected al-Mahdi. Others are keeping their eyes on the United States and the ten FEMA response regions. Others have an eye on the UN. Others are still keeping an eye on the Papacy. We're all on the same team and working to keep the body abreast of possible alignments in multiple places. We're a Kingdom, and eschatology is the science & strategy of the war room. I welcome all logical possibilities and their consideration.

But I'll be honest. Preterism bothers me in that it insists that Satan is bound. Anyone who has ever worked with deliverance ministry, spiritual warfare, and who might simply watch the nightly news can testify that Satan is indeed not bound. And if events like the plague, the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, dropping the atom bomb on Japan, Vietnam, and 9/11 is taking place during the Millennium, this Millennium sucks. In fact, if this is the Millennium, I'd be hesitant to see the New Creation.

Also, please reconcile why Peter said Paul's writings were hard to understand?

Because Peter, who was the preeminent teacher of the Jewish believers understood that Paul's understanding of Grace would be difficult for His Jewish readers to understand. The issue isn't one of prophecy, but rather the Law and its relationship to Grace.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All one can do is teach the Revelation as is. One is free to speculate as a watchman on the wall who thinks they might see movement in the shadows.

Watchman who speculates while looking at shadows blows false alarms.
Types and shadows was the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Old, Jesus concealed, the New, is Jesus revealed.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But I'll be honest. Preterism bothers me in that it insists that Satan is bound. Anyone who has ever worked with deliverance ministry, spiritual warfare, and who might simply watch the nightly news can testify that Satan is indeed not bound. And if events like the plague, the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, dropping the atom bomb on Japan, Vietnam, and 9/11 is taking place during the Millennium, this Millennium sucks. In fact, if this is the Millennium, I'd be hesitant to see the New Creation. .

Aquila, PP sees Satan bound in the sense of Matthew 12:29

Matthew 12:29King James Version (KJV)
29..Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

And that because he is bound we have the authority of Ephesians 1:20-22

Ephesians 1:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20..Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21..Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22..And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

but we still have Spiritual warfare to content with

John 18:36
John 18:36King James Version (KJV)
36..Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

So he is bound and we have authority, but we didn't get rid of him altogether.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But I'll be honest. Preterism bothers me in that it insists that Satan is bound. Anyone who has ever worked with deliverance ministry, spiritual warfare, and who might simply watch the nightly news can testify that Satan is indeed not bound. And if events like the plague, the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, dropping the atom bomb on Japan, Vietnam, and 9/11 is taking place during the Millennium, this Millennium sucks. In fact, if this is the Millennium, I'd be hesitant to see the New Creation.

It's a matter of what bondage means. Does it mean he cannot do anything?

Have you ever bound the devil in a situation in your prayers? Whatever you bind on earth will be bound heaven.

Col 2 says Jesus SPOILED the devil. Jesus said you cannot spoil a strongman unless you first bind him. So if He spoiled the devil, and you cannot spoil a strongman til you first bind him, would it not mean that Jesus bound the devil? The problem is determining to what degree he is bound. We assume total and complete bondage.

But the Bible often made statem,nets that people totally misunderstood. They assumed it meant something but found out they were very wrong.

For example, what would you say if I told you the devil was destroyed?

Pause and think of that.

Now read this:

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

. Jesus was manifest in flesh to destroy the devil. Through death he would destroy the devil.

What people assume this might mean is not what it actually means, obviously. It did not destroy the devil's existence. It dealt a lethal blow to his power.

And that is fulfilled. And we have a problem thinking BOUND cannot possible be fulfilled after reading the devil was destroyed?

It is not that the devil is not bound, it is what we think bondage speaks about.

You said Jesus must be a flake if this is the millennium and the devil is bound. However, your same reasoning flies in the face of Heb 2:14 where we reads the devil is destroyed. It's just that saying bondage must be the way you imagine it is simply not the truth. Bondage can be in degrees. And every time I write this explanation, you must not have noticed it. But when you read Rev 20 theory ugly you will find the bondage was strictly related to deceiving the nations in a SPECIFIFC ISSUE. To gather them together against the holy city. THat is what the bondage refers to.

No where does Rev 20 say the devil cannot cause crime and sin. Yet we are told he is destroyed in Heb 2:14 and he is still active. So it is the manner of understanding what God intended us to know by saying he is bound.

You assume things like wars cannot exist if he is bound. But what if that is not what God meant for you to understand at all? Like I said, if you had not know anything about the gospel and the word of God other than CHrist came and died on the cross, and you read Heb 2:14 you might be tempted to think Satan does not even exist any more. It said he was destroyed. But when oyou learn the destruction refers to a specific angle of disarming his Devils and taking those who want to be saved out from his prison, it all fits. It's not perhaps the way you would phrase it, but the bible did. And I claim that's the case with bondage in Rev 20 as well.

You seem to really struggle with thinking outside your box. You have to come to the conclusion that what you determined a term to mean may be offkey and somewhat incorrect compared to God's intention. If you cannot do that and are unwilling to do what multiplied hundreds of thousands have had to do with their beliefs at one time or other, you cannot think outside your box and simply believe you are right because you are right. Are you open enough to consider an alternative explanation, or are you closed to it?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Near is a relative term. To the LORD, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as but a day. Only the Father knows the times appointed. It is written in a manner to keep us all on our toes and in preparation.

Concerning the meaning of that "thousand years is a day" passage, look HERE.