How come most YEC are not preterist?

[dizzle]

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?

[1ofWaterNFire]

I'm a YEC but I don't know if I'm a preterist... What's a preterist? :dufus: Sorry if it's common knowledge...

[dizzle]

It is not particularly common knowledge. You would know if you were one. A preterist is some who believes that things such as the Great Tribulation were first century events.

You may find this helpful in the future.. here at TWeb we have a glossay for these unfamiliar terms found here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/glossary.php?view=all

It is located in the footer of each page.

[$cirisme]

And in the forum jump :bunny:

[$cirisme]

I'm not a preterist, mostly because I have not be adequately(need a spell checker!! :wink:) convinced that soon is in relation to when Christ walked the earth, not when Israel becomes a nation again.

For me, it basically all revolves around that.

[GrayPilgrim]

I read the Bible :egad:

No, it is a gramamtical thing, i.e. I think they are non sequitors.

[dizzle]

Not at all, the very same arguments that are used for Genesis apply even more so to the NT timing statements which are much more numerous and clear.

[$cirisme]

Dee Dee Warren:

Not at all, the very same arguments that are used for Genesis apply even more so to the NT timing statements which are much more numerous and clear.

Was that addressed to GP? :huh:

[dizzle]

Oh yes, I didn't even see your response until right now. In response to your post, "soon" is not the only word used, but the words are varied and numerous and clear. And in context there is no way for it to be soon when Israel becomes a nation again, because the context is the Israel that was a nation back then, never again to be ethnocentric entity in the eyes of God. That is done and over. Jesus stated the timing in many ways so that we could not possibly miss the point.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 09:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165770#post165770)
Dee Dee Warren:

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism.

There is a poll to show this? :huh:

:idea: It could be that the YEC contra mundum argument is primarily about the authority of Scripture. All non-YEC ideas come from adding to Scripture, as per the cartoon below. YECs aim to restore the authority of Scripture in all areas, including the history of the universe, the earth and life on it.

But preterism contra mundum is meaningless unless Scripture is authoritative. Therefore the YEC debate is foundational to the preterism debate. Not that eschatology is unimportant, just that it is a debate between Bible-believing Christians so it is not quite as urgent.

[dizzle]

I agree but that does not answer my question. I am directing this towards believers only, particularly YEC. I read the YEC timing arguments, and find that I can often "lift" them to use in my arguments against futurists.


For example, in a recent debate with RevSteve I used the AiG article on why the thousand years is a day thing is load of patookey to apply to clear timing statements. Now if that logic is tru for Genesis, why does not the same YEC hermeneutic drive escahtology (for the YEC that even care about eschatology - I realize that is not everyone's fav topic)

[GrayPilgrim]

Because the passage in 2 Peter points out that even if GOd's return seems slow to us that we are juding incorrectly. THat is this passage is explicitly used to show we cannot bring what we think of as a long time to the table when we discuss the coming of the Day of the Lord, whereas this passage is not used in explicit creation passages. Thus the use of a thousand years is LIKE a day shows that hte Lord's forebearance does nto make him slow. Thus the answer is CONTEXT, context, context

[Socratism]

It is clear to me that some of the predicted events happened and some did not.

Why this is true I do not not know for sure, but of course I have theories. :shrug:

[dizzle]

Socratism I would be interested in dialoging with you about which ones you feel did not.

GP, I will be back to address your point later.. it needs more than a quick answer.

Socrates, I could personalize the question more... why aren't you a preterist?

I am not meaning this as a slam or aggression, I am genuinely interested.

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Socrates: Preterism isn't just an issue for Bible believers. The "Jesus was a false prophet" concept if true sends Christianity crumbling far quicker than the loss of a literal 7 day Genesis. I believe these claims have lead some to apostasy or kept other people from the faith including Mark Smith of www.jcnotforme.com whom says he departed from the faith because "Jesus was a false prophet". Ultimately, a Messiah whom performed miracles and rose from the dead and was person 3 of the trinity but couldn't keep a promise would be strange indeed.

P.S. Just curious, have any Preterists bothered at a rebutal to the essay on Preterism at the site above?

[bar Jonah]

Fallacy of majority. What difference does it make? It doesn't invalidate either view if this is the case. If most Christians aren't preterist in the first place, it might follow that most YECs aren't preterists.

Most dispensationalists aren't Open. Most open theists aren't dispensational. :shrug:

Truth is frequently in the minority. It is evidential neither for or against either view. :rired:


Dee Dee Warren:
It is not particularly common knowledge. You would know if you were one. A preterist is some who believes that things such as the Great Tribulation were first century events.
On a side note, if I agree that those events were supposed to happen in the 1st century, does that make me a partial-partial preterist?

[studyhound]

Today @ 10:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217998#post217998)
Daedalus Netwrk:

Socrates: Preterism isn't just an issue for Bible believers. The "Jesus was a false prophet" concept if true sends Christianity crumbling far quicker than the loss of a literal 7 day Genesis. I believe these claims have lead some to apostasy or kept other people from the faith including Mark Smith of www.jcnotforme.com whom says he departed from the faith because "Jesus was a false prophet". Ultimately, a Messiah whom performed miracles and rose from the dead and was person 3 of the trinity but couldn't keep a promise would be strange indeed.

P.S. Just curious, have any Preterists bothered at a rebutal to the essay on Preterism at the site above?


Your link jcnotforme.com was site not found. might check the link.

p.s. is that link to the essay on preterism

[wdwwilder]

I think few christians views of escatology are informed by scripture everyone I know was tought what they believe as a child or young christian and that is that, we all have a hard time seeing out of the box of the paradigm we were indoctinated in. Creationism breaks across dominational lines and has people of all escatologyical lines I personally am a product of my early upbringing in the Church I was in as a child (Church of God , general offices Anderson Indiana )

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217998#post217998)
Daedalus Netwrk:

Socrates: Preterism isn't just an issue for Bible believers. The "Jesus was a false prophet" concept if true sends Christianity crumbling far quicker than the loss of a literal 7 day Genesis.

I'd like to see proof of this. A sample size of one doesn't cut it. But there are oodles of people using evolution as an excuse for unbelief, starting with Darwin himself.

And there are preterists who oppose YEC and the global Flood on preterist grounds. It doesn't prove that preterism is wrong per se (most preterists seem to be sound on YEC and the Flood), but it does call into question the idea that preterism and YEC have identical hermeneutical principles in all cases.

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217998#post217998)
Daedalus Netwrk:


P.S. Just curious, have any Preterists bothered at a rebutal to the essay on Preterism at the site above?

Why don't you forward a good link to jpholding here at the site by Personal Message. He regularly trounces alleged rebutals to preterism. Make sure though before you do, that the rebuttal is not to the heresy of "full preterism" that preterists themselves denounce as incorrect and heresy.

[dizzle]

Today @ 03:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218031#post218031)
Socrates:



And there are preterists who oppose YEC and the global Flood on preterist grounds.

Who?


It doesn't prove that preterism is wrong per se (most preterists seem to be sound on YEC and the Flood), but it does call into question the idea that preterism and YEC have identical hermeneutical principles in all cases.

Actually it does not at all. It would simply show that at least one group isnot being consistent. We can then hash out which one is not, but to point to a few renegades who disagree is not a proof or means to call in question.

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/Second%20Coming%20stuff/preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

Socrates: My statement or it's meaning was like this:
If Jesus Was a false prophet, then he couldn't be one of the trinity. Jesus commented that he comes soon and that the events in the prophecy are near repeatedly in Revelations (Rev 22: 6 and 7, Rev 22:10, Rev 22: 20 are examples). Jesus said "This generation" wouldn't pass before the events of the Olivet discourse occured (Mathew 24: 33-34 while talking to the disciples and noticably not some future generation). John commented that the "last hour" was near because many antichrists (gnostics or their predecessors?) are on scene (1 John 2: 18 and 19). Similar things appear in the New Testament and I'll continue referrencing them next post. These prophecies had time limits, if they came to pass within the time limit Jesus and the New Testament writers are vindicated. If not, they fail the prophecy test and it's trouble indeed for Christianity if it's founders fail the prophet test. People who departed from the faith or resisted coming to it include Mark Smith of the above site and some people who wrote in sharing his observations. There is also the article at http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1305&mode=&order=0&thold=0&catid=2 (DDW, if site is full preterist I apologize) describing one man on his deathbed who didn't come to Christ because "At least, I dont believe as the Apostles did,that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime" . Lee Strobel found the question on the "soon" type references relevant enough they asked about it in The Case For Christ though the answer there was more from a futurist prespective (I'll have the reference on my next post). The New Testament would flop from false prophecy for the same type arguments your organization gives for Genesis and it's loss being the end of the Bible. So, to my thought, Preterism isn't just a point of interest to believers. And I haven't seen preterists using the idea as an argument for a local flood to date though I can imagine why some would see it as nessecary. A first century Great Tribulation ultimately doesn't have a great deal to do with a literal 7 day creation or day-age or whatever else. DDW asks the question; for the same reasons you are young earth creationists (time literalism), why aren't you (hopefully Orthodox) Preterists (for time literalism, near=near, not near=far)?

[studyhound]

Today @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219001#post219001)
Daedalus Netwrk:

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/Second%20Coming%20stuff/preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

I started to read his "essay" but after a while I saw through his rant, and he's just being augmentative for controversy sake and mixes his orthodox preterist with his heretical preterist. Plus he makes the same leaps that he accuses others of making. His essay is full of half-truths and leaps of understanding; he has no understanding of preterism and resorts to fowl language and tearing out verses out of context.

His whole propose is the “deprogramming” of Christians and his whole site is vulgar and demeaning.

I personally will just, deal with legitimate objections not joker running around half-cocked wannabe Freethinker.

Just my two bits.

[dizzle]

And I haven't seen preterists using the idea as an argument for a local flood to date though I can imagine why some would see it as nessecary. A first century Great Tribulation ultimately doesn't have a great deal to do with a literal 7 day creation or day-age or whatever else. DDW asks the question; for the same reasons you are young earth creationists (time literalism), why aren't you (hopefully Orthodox) Preterists (for time literalism, near=near, not near=far)?

I can understand how some preterist ideas of global language not being literal being transposed to the flood quite easily. I believe it is wrong, but I can see how that can be done. I was not however refering to the flood per se, since I was meaning preterist time indicators in the hermeneutic, not the global issue. I was asking how come most YEC (a lot of YEC are dispie) do not consistently interpret time references. I can explain why I think the flood is global and the Great Trib was not.

And yes DN, we are referring to Orthodox Preterism... I denounce heretical preterism quite vocally.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219001#post219001)
Daedalus Netwrk:

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/Second%20Coming%20stuff/preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

This pillock is a total clown and the epitome of village atheism, with all sorts of rantings about why he rejects Christianity, but can't string two logical thoughts together. He hates biblical creation just as much as he hates preterism.

Socrates: ... There is also the article at http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1305&mode=&order=0&thold=0&catid=2 (DDW, if site is full preterist I apologize)

No, just apologize for falling for the game of the neo-Hymenaean heretics of adopting their self-serving appellation. :whack:

describing one man on his deathbed who didn't come to Christ because "At least, I dont believe as the Apostles did,that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime" . Lee Strobel found the question on the "soon" type references relevant enough they asked about it in The Case For Christ though the answer there was more from a futurist prespective (I'll have the reference on my next post).

Right, you've just undermined your own case for the essentiality of preterism in apologetics :bonk:

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 02:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218022#post218022)
wdwwilder:

I think few christians views of escatology are informed by scripture everyone I know was tought what they believe as a child or young christian and that is that, we all have a hard time seeing out of the box of the paradigm we were indoctinated in.

The circle of people you know appears to be somewhat limited. Most people I know don't know very much about scripture and thus were not really "indoctrinated" into any specific view of scripture except that Jesus is Lord and died for our sins.

Most people I know apparently don't particularly care to increase their knowledge of scripture, since they tend to change the subject whenever scripture is mentioned.

However, in those rare instances when people do become involved in learning more about scripture I find that they do not generally cling to their previous superficial understandings of scripture, but instead are quite receptive to new viewpoints that can be shown to be scripturally sound.

It is true that there are many "myths" about Christianity but most of them come from the secular media, not the churches.

This might be because many churches prefer to discuss "modern" things instead of "old fashioned" scripture. :shrug:

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Socrates: I did not say I agreed with all they had to say, I did say that the soon type stuff caused people to doubt the inspiration of the Bible. They may be wrong, but the reasons they were or are not Christians stand as reasons for departure to their minds. I am not a full preterist but I see the story of somebody having a supposed "soon" coming (in judgement like in the Old Testament and to set up the millenial kingdom as in Revelation 20:4) as a barrier between them and Christianity as a distinct possibility. Some of the reason I give the story some credit as I have seen rebuttals to similar objections somewhat randomly http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/false.html#john and similar writings by other people http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/false_prophet.shtml and realize somebody would probably take objections like this to heart. I don't care for the propaganda of the listed sites, I do take note of why they took what opinions they took though. I note that those objections were reasons why people left or stayed away from the faith, like some people use evolution as a reason to stay away from Christianity. Therefore, objections like these deserve rebutals, preterism has an easy one, though futurists can come up with fairly clever ones (see God and Science link with an example of the type of thing I refer to). With all the close by time referrences of different sorts, a sort of close by fulfillment would be required for New Testament Bible prophecy to be inerrant, which is where Preterism starts. Is a "repeat performance" (taking the quote from J.P Holding somewhere on the site, link to particular writing if anyone cares) possible? Perhaps. As to the Case for Christ, I found what I thought of when I did the comment on page 43, though the passage on my second reading isn't quite relevant enough for my argument though it is in a similar category. I'm about out of time and will have to save the rest of the close time markers for later.

studyhound: I wasn't very impressed with the above after seeing the Preterist view's arguments a bit ago. The author's counting on a supposed silence by Preterists ("refuse to debate me" hinting the stuff therin is not answerable), and the fact that most people aren't farmiliar with the preterist view to know how such criticism would be answered bugs me though. Article or writing would be a better description.

DDW: *Shrug* You said yourself that a good chunk of preterist stuff online is full. I hadn't the time to do a double check on all material at the site scrutinizing it to see if it consisted of mixed Preterists or just full, I did remember the site in my mind at the time. Sorry.

[dizzle]

DDW: *Shrug* You said yourself that a good chunk of preterist stuff online is full. I hadn't the time to do a double check on all material at the site scrutinizing it to see if it consisted of mixed Preterists or just full, I did remember the site in my mind at the time. Sorry.

Yes but that is kinda important. Say for instance a Muslim in asking about certain arguments, mixed together any group that claimed to "Christian" in his analysis, Mormons, JWs, etc. You would object. Orthodox preterists in the same way object to such a mish moshing of their view with a extreme perversion of it.

I still would like to know though by the nonPreterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet soon etc is not soon etc?

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Socrates: I missed two arguments and will take care of them now. I only linked to the above as a scource for my thinking, I suspected the site of being full preterist but wasn't sure if it was a mixture of various Preterists or whether it was purely full. As a result I included an apology for DDW in case of the latter if true.
As to the passage in The Case For Christ on p 41, it amounts to this:
Stroebel asks if the miracles, sayings of Jesus, and the like could have been later additions because the early Christians were too busy waiting for Jesus to return during their lifetimes to record his real activities.

Bloomberg: First I think the premise is overstated. The truth is that the majority of Jesus' teaching pressupose a significant span of time before the end of the world. But second, even if Jesus' followers did think he might come back fairly quickly, remember that Christianity was born out of Judaism. For centuries the Jews lived with the repeated pronouncements that the Day of the Lord was at hand and the continuing history of Israel. And the followers of those prophets recorded, valued, and preserved the words of the prophets. Given that Jesus' followers looked upon him as being greater than a prophet, it seems reasonable that they would have done the same thing.

All in all the above doesn't hurt or help Preterism as I realized on my second reading. Bloomberg is right when he says Jesus' teachings presume a long gap between the end of the world but the Olivet Discourse and the start of the things in Revelations is still under time limit. Also, as well put by J. P. Holding, the Olivet discourse "couldn't be the end of the world as if it was he would have said to evangelize as many as possible in these last days, rather than running to the Judean Hills trying to save oneself by hiding in a measure of futility like Wile E. Cayote trying to save himself by holding up an umbrella against a falling boulder." (Paraphrased from http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4524 ) All in all the closeness still stands after this anyway, and you can save your hammers.

[Algesan]

08-02-2003 @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165770#post165770)
Dee Dee Warren:

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?

Dee Dee,
I'm a pretrib rapturist, formerly opposed to all things preterist, but then the flavor of preterism I understood is the one you are opposed to. JPH's following of it bothered me (I was reading on Tektonics before TWeb was up), so I read up on his variation (for those with impaired understanding: as in the one he holds, not that he has exclusive rights to it). From what I know of your and his position, I have no problem with it as far as it being heretical, but that is as far as I took it. I've read a few things, but none seem compelling to me, merely that you may be correct, I may be incorrect, but it doesn't appear to be a salvation issue, so I let it go at that. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to studying it more, but that is a task beyond the scope of what I see myself doing in the forseeable future. Hopefully that will answer your question in the case of this YEC anyway.

[dizzle]

/ot get an avatar....

and I will answer your post when I get a chances, thanks for replying

[Algesan]

<Continuing OT>

Why the fascination with avatars or lack thereof?

</OT continuance>

[xevolutionist]

Yes but that is kinda important. Say for instance a Muslim in asking about certain arguments, mixed together any group that claimed to "Christian" in his analysis, Mormons, JWs, etc. You would object. Orthodox preterists in the same way object to such a mish moshing of their view with a extreme perversion of it.

I still would like to know though by the nonPreterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet soon etc is not soon etc?

When God talks about the days in Genesis He referrs to a morning and an evening. Sounds pretty literal to me. It's all in the context. Jesus Himself referred to Genesis as if it were literal, not descriptive or allegorical.

What does soon mean to God? I certainly don't claim to know. When we're talking about things like eternity, soon could be a very long period of time from our earthly perspective and a very short period of time from God's perspective.

There are some things in the Bible I don't completely understand but I believe that God has made very clear the most important subject for all men, Salvation.

I think preterism is a foolish notion at best, but if anyone relies on Jesus as The way, The truth and The life, then they can believe a lot of silly things and still spend eternity in the presence of God rather than in hell.

Whether you believe in preterism or post or mid or pre trib, it doesn't really change the way a Christian should be living His life in the service of Christ and following His commands. It's called the great commandment, not the great suggestion.

xevo, a non preterist, pro pretrib yec.

[dizzle]

When God talks about the days in Genesis He referrs to a morning and an evening. Sounds pretty literal to me.

However, it doesn't appear to have been taken that way by the earlier readers who's perspective might be a bit more in tune with the cultural context rather than us western moderns.

It's all in the context. Jesus Himself referred to Genesis as if it were literal, not descriptive or allegorical.

Actually He did take it as descriptive in that His teaching on marriage was based upon the Genesis account. It is not an either/or situation.

As far as "literal" - You cannot literally have a morning and an evening without the sun. That is like claiming you have a year without an orbit. Those things are grounded in those astronomical phenomena.


What does soon mean to God? I certainly don't claim to know. When we're talking about things like eternity, soon could be a very long period of time from our earthly perspective and a very short period of time from God's perspective.

Frankly that is silly. Was the Bible written to God or to man? If you can't claim what "soon" means, you really are not in a position to dogmatically claim what "evening and morning" means either. How are you to judge what "evening and morning" is "from God's perspective." See, you can't have it both ways.

BTW - are you on the remembering Alex Yahoo group? There is someone with your handle that posts there.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I am OEC, but I remember reading Hugh Ross and how people were stunned that he takes Revelation and other passages in the "wooden literal sense."

On another area, I can understand imagery used in Genesis and apply that to the Olivet Discourse in that I don't think the things described literally happen in the sense many take them to mean. However, I believe Jesus was using OT language to convey the point.

[Brown Cat]

Hi, I thought I'd take a shot at this thread. This is in reference not only to your reply to xevo but to some of his thoughts as well. This is the way this particular YEC thinks, anyway.

(from xevolution) When God talks about the days in Genesis He refers to a morning and an evening. Sounds pretty literal to me.

However, it doesn't appear to have been taken that way by the earlier readers who's perspective might be a bit more in tune with the cultural context rather than us western moderns.

I'm not sure what you mean by “being in tune with cultural context”. I have yet to see it demonstrated that Jesus, His disciples and the Jewish leadership in His day understood Genesis in any way other than that of a literal interpretation.


Actually He did take it as descriptive in that His teaching on marriage was based upon the Genesis account. It is not an either/or situation.

Matthew 19:3-6, (NET):
3“Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?' 4He answered, 'Have you not read that from the beginning, the Creator made them male and female,5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'”
I would say that the context is in favor of a literal, rather than a descriptive or allegorical interpretation.

As far as "literal" - You cannot literally have a morning and an evening without the sun. That is like claiming you have a year without an orbit. Those things are grounded in those astronomical phenomena.

Why not a day without sunshine? Genesis 1:3-5 describes the first day as morning and evening. It has been argued that the sun was not created until day 4. I don't know about that but even if that were the case, I see no reason to believe “you cannot literally have a morning and evening without the sun”. If there is an omnipotent Creator, such an occurrence is well within His capabilities. I can think of two prophetic passages that speak of God supplying a light source other than the sun to support this view:
Zechariah, in prophesying about the Day of the Lord, wrote:
“On that day there will be no light — the sources of light in the heavens will congeal. It will happen in one day (a day known to the LORD); not in the day or the night, but in the evening there will be light.” (Zechariah 14:6-7, NET)

(BTW, what is the preterist interpretation of Zechariah chapter 14?)

But back to my main point: The other verse is Revelation 21:23 where John wrote of the New Jerusalem:
“The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb.”(NET)

IOW, God Himself very probably did in the beginning, is now able to, and will in the future, supply the necessary light. We don't need no stinkin' sun.

(from xevolution) What does soon mean to God? I certainly don't claim to know. When we're talking about things like eternity, soon could be a very long period of time from our earthly perspective and a very short period of time from God's perspective.


Frankly that is silly. Was the Bible written to God or to man? If you can't claim what "soon" means, you really are not in a position to dogmatically claim what "evening and morning" means either. How are you to judge what "evening and morning" is "from God's perspective." See, you can't have it both ways.

Of course the Bible was written to man by those inspired by God. But man doesn't always catch all the meanings that God intended. There are several instances where Biblical prophecies speak of different but similar events divided by a time span of hundreds of years. For example:

Isaiah 7:14 : What kind of sign would it have been to King Ahaz if this spoke only of a distant fulfillment? The text seems to call for a child to born in his lifetime as well as speaking of Christ later on.
Matthew 17:11-12: :Jesus reference to John the Baptist as an archetype of Elijah who was still to come. (cf. Malachi 4:5)
Isaiah 13 :Although this is a reference to the destruction of Babylonian Empire, references to the “Day of the Lord” include events (Isaiah 13:9-11) that can only refer to a future “Day of the Lord”

Since there have been prophecies that foretell both near and distant events, I believe this then allows for the word “soon” to have more than its primary, usual meaning. In Revelation 22, Jesus says twice “I am coming soon.” (Revelation 22:7, 20). It certainly doesn't look to me that Jesus returned around 70AD. Satan is not yet bound in the abyss. (It sure doesn't look that way with evil everywhere rampant and increasing in the world), The eternal state has not come to pass where all lawlessness, suffering and death are have been done away with.

Finally, 2 Peter 3:8-9 makes it clear to me that what is “soon” to me is not necessarily “soon” to God. Peter used hyperbole to contrast God's perspective and ours.

[dizzle]

I'm not sure what you mean by “being in tune with cultural context”. I have yet to see it demonstrated that Jesus, His disciples and the Jewish leadership in His day understood Genesis in any way other than that of a literal interpretation.

I challenge you to find any ancient Jewish source that takes it the way that Exevo and yourself are advocating. Neither did most of the Early Church Fathers.


I would say that the context is in favor of a literal, rather than a descriptive or allegorical interpretation.

I am using descriptive differently than you. I meant He argued from the specific to a descriptive general rule.


I don't know about that but even if that were the case, I see no reason to believe “you cannot literally have a morning and evening without the sun”.

The text says that the sun was created on the fourth day. That is not disputed by any YEC that I know. But it is true you cannot literraly have a morning an evening without the sun, since day in itself is a descriptive term describing the turning of the earth on its Axis around the sun and in the length of its travel in orbit around the sun.

If there is an omnipotent Creator, such an occurrence is well within His capabilities.

Not literally. An omnipotent creator cannot also make a square circle.

I can think of two prophetic passages that speak of God supplying a light source other than the sun to support this view:
Zechariah, in prophesying about the Day of the Lord, wrote:
“On that day there will be no light — the sources of light in the heavens will congeal. It will happen in one day (a day known to the LORD); not in the day or the night, but in the evening there will be light.” (Zechariah 14:6-7, NET)

First, that passage is not intended to be taken in a wooden literal sense. However, even assuming that it is, I didn't deny that there are other sources of light other than the sun. Such as my household lamps, which I do not believe are mini suns in my living room. This passage supports my very point - in the evening (i.e. when the earth is faced away from the sun in that geographical location) there will be light. But it is still evening as judged by the position of the sun.


(BTW, what is the preterist interpretation of Zechariah chapter 14?)

Here are some links that deal with it:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarzechariah14.html

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45387


But back to my main point: The other verse is Revelation 21:23 where John wrote of the New Jerusalem:
“The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb.”(NET)

Another passage that is not intended to be taken in a wooden literal sense. But again, no one is denying that there are other light sources other than the sun. But the very definition of an evening and morning is relative to the sun.

Of course the Bible was written to man by those inspired by God. But man doesn't always catch all the meanings that God intended.

Like making soon mean the opposite of soon? So much for the perspicuity of Scripture.

There are several instances where Biblical prophecies speak of different but similar events divided by a time span of hundreds of years. For example:

Isaiah 7:14 : What kind of sign would it have been to King Ahaz if this spoke only of a distant fulfillment?

It doesn't. It is directly speaking of an event in the King's own lifetime. The future application is strictly typological and not required to fulfill the prophecy so that Isaiah would not be a false prophet.

Although this is a reference to the destruction of Babylonian Empire, references to the “Day of the Lord” include events (Isaiah 13:9-11) that can only refer to a future “Day of the Lord”

Incorrect. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Babylon. However, it has future typological use.

Since there have been prophecies that foretell both near and distant events, I believe this then allows for the word “soon” to have more than its primary, usual meaning.

This is obfuscation. In the cases you cited above, there was fulfillment within the time frames specificied with echoes later on. In saying you think it can have more than its "primary, usual meaning," you actually mean that you think it can mean something that it doesn't mean but acting like you are referring to a secondary, unusual meaning. Nowhere in any dictionary are you going to find definitions for "soon" "near" "at hand" secondary or otherwise that mean "not soon" "far away" and "distant." When you can make words mean their opposite, then you have entered Wonderland, not the Bible.

In Revelation 22, Jesus says twice “I am coming soon.” (Revelation 22:7, 20). It certainly doesn't look to me that Jesus returned around 70AD.

Yet He did come to judge Jerusalem which is exactly what it is being prophesied. In His letters to the seven churches, He threatens that if they don't straighten up and fly right, He would "come" to them and remove their lampstand. I really don't think He was threatening to vapourize the universe because certain churches were misbehaving.

Satan is not yet bound in the abyss.

Yet Jesus said He was bound in the first century. I will believe Jesus.

(It sure doesn't look that way with evil everywhere rampant and increasing in the world),

And nowhere does the Bible say that when satan is bound there won't be such things.


The eternal state has not come to pass where all lawlessness, suffering and death are have been done away with.

Agreed but irrelevant. That event wasn't claimed to be soon or near or at hand.

Finally, 2 Peter 3:8-9 makes it clear to me that what is “soon” to me is not necessarily “soon” to God. Peter used hyperbole to contrast God's perspective and ours.

Actually Peter was teaching that God is timeless IMHO not that "soon" to God means "long." In any event, the soon, near, and at hand passages are spoken to man for man to understand.

Daniel is told to seal up his prophecy because the time was not near (showing God is perfectly capable of stating something is far) and yet John, who is paralleling Daniel in many places is told NOT to seal up the prophecy because the time was at hand.

BTW, I am YEC.

[Brown Cat]

I suppose I should have answered the question of the OP, first of all.

“How come most YEC's are not Preterist?” My answer to that is I was barely familiar with the term before I came to TWEB. I have not examined preterism very much but I do have problems with what I've seen so far. I intend to make a further study when my Theology course I'm taking covers Eschatology. Right now, I have so many “fish to fry” in real life that I feel kind of like the cook at Long John Silver's during the lunch rush; also, I believe we can both agree that this not a doctrine that is essential for personal salvation.

I hope to also talk about some of the points you raised in your reply as time allows, but not in all one post. It takes quite some time and effort for me to get these posts researched and written.

But I will reply to this one where you said:

I challenge you to find any ancient Jewish source that takes it the way that Exevo and yourself are advocating. Neither did most of the Early Church Fathers.

Although I tried to find an ancient Jewish source that described how the Jewish leadership in Jesus' day believed about the creation, I didn't find anything other than a reference in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a, which held that the world would last 6000 years) and it's of uncertain date. But it doesn't so much matter how they interpreted Genesis as how Jesus and His disciples did. From the texts where Genesis accounts are mentioned it is evident (to me, at least) that Jesus and His followers understood the events and people as being literal.

Supporting NT passages:

Jesus (I already cited Matthew 19:3-6 in my previous post; see also Luke 17:26-27)
Peter (1 Peter 3:6; 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5-8;3:5-6)
John (John 1:1-3)
Paul (Acts 14:15; 17:26; 1Corinthians 15:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:13-14)

As to how many early church fathers who specifically taught that the creation was done in six twenty-four hour days? From Justin Martyr to Augustine (100 to 430AD), I found there were at least nine whose writings show that they did believe in literal twenty-four hour days; there were two that I found (Origen and Clement of Alexandria) who saw the days of creation as figurative (but still no more than 10,000 years); and lastly there were eleven whose position was not clear from their writings that survive. Even so, there is enough evidence to infer that the 24 hour day view was widely held in the early church.

Notable examples of Early Church Fathers who held to 24 hour days of creation include:

Theophilus of Antioch (died 183-185AD) To Autolycus
Irenaeus,(2nd Century) Against Heresies, 5.28.3
Basil, (329-379AD), Homilies on the Hexameron ,2.8

If you'd like, I can refer you to a great website where someone researched the matter carefully and honestly.

[The Curtmudgeon]

If you'd like, I can refer you to a great website where someone researched the matter carefully and honestly.

I'd like, Zem! You can PM me with the URL, or just post it here.

The (thanx!) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

I still would like to know though by the nonPreterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet soon etc is not soon etc?

I still would like to know though by the Preterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet 1000 years etc is not 1000 years etc?

The (back to you, DD) Curtmudgeon

[Brown Cat]

I'd like, Zem! You can PM me with the URL, or just post it here.

The (thanx!) Curtmudgeon

Here you go, Curtmudgeon.

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm#top

Z

[dizzle]

I still would like to know though by the Preterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet 1000 years etc is not 1000 years etc?

The (back to you, DD) Curtmudgeon

The same way that if I told you I would be home for an evening and morning and then also said you looked like a million bucks, you wouldn't think that I was saying you were uglier than a million and one bucks. The Bible gives us clear examples that numbers are important (notice there a number here - thousand), especially one thousand.

Does God not own the cattle on the 1001st hill? Does He not keep his promises to the 1001th generation? Is 1001 days outside better than one day in HIs Court?

(BTW - I no longer hold that the days of Genesis 1 must be precisely one day as we know it - could be, but perhaps not - the fact that there are 7 days, with man created on the 6th day speaks volumes more than a wooden solar day)

[The Curtmudgeon]

The same way that if I told you I would be home for an evening and morning and then also said you looked like a million bucks, you wouldn't think that I was saying you were uglier than a million and one bucks.

No, I would think you were in desperate need of an eye exam! :lol: And I am uglier than a million and one bucks, by at least $999,000! :lol:

The Bible gives us clear examples that numbers are important (notice there a number here - thousand), especially one thousand.

That's my point, DD -- the number 1000 is important, it's not just there as a place holder.

Does God not own the cattle on the 1001st hill? Does He not keep his promises to the 1001th generation? Is 1001 days outside better than one day in HIs Court?

You're comparing apples and kumquats. Just because I can say "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times...." and "I've invested a thousand bucks in underwater living research" doesn't mean that the second occurrence should be interpretted metaphorically, as the first occurrence obviously is. You have to show that the context of the second occurrence requires a metaphorical interpretation -- f'rinstance, you could show that I've never had a thousand bucks that I could spin off for investments in my entire life. But if it's obvious that I do have, or have had, such a sum for such a use you're going to be much harder-pressed to demonstrate that I wasn't talking literally. And if I've got the receipts, your argument is dead.

Just saying that every occurence of "a thousand" in the Bible is metaphorical is dead wrong; there's over 500 occurences, and the vast majority of them are obviously literal (although I'll accept that many or even most of those occurences are approximate numbers, that's not the same as saying that they're metaphorical).

But my point wasn't to argue Preterist v. nonPreterist, DD -- we've been there before, and we're not going to change each other's minds. My point was simply to show that, on this particular occasion, you chose an argument that cuts both ways. You say nonPrete-YECs literalise Gen. 1 "days" and non-literalise Matt. 24 "soon"; I say Prete-YECs literalise Gen. 1 "days" and non-literalise Rev. 20 "thousand years". It's the same argument, and therefore doesn't do you any good, nor would I try to use it in a serious Preterist v. nonPreterist argument, because it obviously doesn't do me any good either.

(BTW - I no longer hold that the days of Genesis 1 must be precisely one day as we know it - could be, but perhaps not - the fact that there are 7 days, with man created on the 6th day speaks volumes more than a wooden solar day)

Ah -- now we get to the crux of it. You don't actually hold that the "days" in Genesis are literal days. So they could be "a day = a thousand years" days, or they could be even longer aeons, couldn't they? If they're not literal days, but you consider yourself a YEC, what kind of period do you think they represent, and why?

The (you're the first YEC I've met who waffled on what "day" meant) Curtmudgeon

[thecompletegeek]

I am a YEC and former Left Behind-ist (ah, well), but I'm now a partial preterist who doesn't prohibit the possibility of premillennialism.

I don't have anything else to add; I just thought that it would be fun to say that. :-)

[MrManNo1]

That's my point, DD -- the number 1000 is important, it's not just there as a place holder.

I can't speak for Judaism, as I am not very well versed in the ANE cultures, but I know for ancient civilizations, such as China, a specific, rounded "large" number tends to denote simply a "large" number. For example, if you read ancient Chinese literature, and you come across a line that says there are "10,000" deities, for example, it would not mean that there are exactly 10,000 deities. It would mean that there are a large, indeterminate amount of deities.

Basically, in many ancient cultures, large numbers tend not to denote specific numbers. They tend to denote that whatever is being counted is very large.

On topic, however, I have seen convincing arguments for both sides, and I simply do not see it necessary to choose one particular idea immediately. We will see what is true when it comes about.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I can't speak for Judaism, as I am not very well versed in the ANE cultures, but I know for ancient civilizations, such as China, a specific, rounded "large" number tends to denote simply a "large" number. For example, if you read ancient Chinese literature, and you come across a line that says there are "10,000" deities, for example, it would not mean that there are exactly 10,000 deities. It would mean that there are a large, indeterminate amount of deities.

Basically, in many ancient cultures, large numbers tend not to denote specific numbers. They tend to denote that whatever is being counted is very large.

I agree that that can be the case. The Greek word 'myriad' originally meant only a large, uncountable (in the practical sense, not the mathematical) number, but later came to be specific as 10,000. I don't think anyone would argue that Rev. 5:11, f'rinstance, was intended to represent a specific number:
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

It's fairly obvious from the way that verse is phrased that he's saying "a number too great to count" was around the throne (of course, the vagueness of "thousands" -- plural form but without a number of thousands specified -- contributes to that sense).

But a close reading of the Bible's use of 'thousand' reveals numerous times when the only sensible interpretation is specifically 1000 (although sometimes it's an approximate number, it is not an unspecific number).

And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand [pieces] of silver: behold, he [is] to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that [are] with thee, and with all [other]: thus she was reproved.

It's not sensible to believe that Abimelech is here saying, "I have given your brother an amount of silver that I have not bothered to count out." He might be very generous -- the situation is one that calls for generosity -- but nevertheless he's going to be sure of what he pays Abraham, or else sometime soon after when his chamberlain comes to him and says, "Sire, the Egyptian tribute is due," Abimelech is going to have to answer, "Quick, go count and see what we have left after I dumped some untold amount of silver on Abraham!" Sorry, not a likely scenario.

Likewise, Moses can't possibly be using 'thousand' in an unrestricted sense when he says:
And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation [was] an hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and threescore and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary:

The very fact that "a thousand" provides only a part of the number of shekels shows that 1000 is specifically meant here, not an uncounted or uncountable number.

These are just two early examples from a search on 'thousand'; I can give many others.

You might note that both your Chinese example, and my Greek example, specifically use "10,000", not "1000", as a vague number representing an uncount(ed)(able) number. I can't go so far as to say that that's normal -- that 1000 is always a specific number while 10,000 is always an unspecific number -- but I think it might show a pattern nonetheless.

On topic, however, I have seen convincing arguments for both sides, and I simply do not see it necessary to choose one particular idea immediately. We will see what is true when it comes about.

Well, if we're really going to be on topic, then my third para in the previous post stands: We're not actually talking about "1000" at all; we're talking about the ridiculousness of the argument that YECs who take "a day" in Genesis 1 to be a literal day "ought" to likewise take "soon" in the Olivet Discourse to be literal (and homocentric) and thus become Preterists. I simply used the example of "1000" to point out to DDW that her argument cuts both ways: that the exact same argument can be used to show that YECs who take "a day" in Genesis 1 to be a literal day "ought" to likewise take "1000 years" in the MIllennial Kingdom discussion to be literal and thus become Millennarian futurists.

The point here is not whether or not that 1000 really is literal, only that her "YECs ought to be Preterists" argument is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

The only reasonable conclusion from the Scriptures is that YECs ought to be both Preterists and Millennarian futurists. :teeth:

The ("there's glory for you!") Curtmudgeon

[disciple100]

Hi! I'm a YEC, and I consider myself an Orthodox Preterist. I am no expert here, (not that I would be confused with one :teeth:), but I agree with the whole 'using exaggeration to describe an indiscernable amount.' I notice that alot of your examples Curtmugeon are about money, which is something they would count out and had time to do so, but when John was having these visions, I doubt he had time to count out how many people there were in a crowd at one time, or how much time had passed. So 1000 years just means a long time to me. Now what about soon? Here's Revelations 1:

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Sounds like he meant things would be kicking off soon to me.

Now for the creation days in Genesis, I think they are days as the ancients would understand days to be, the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again. According to this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ) specifically here ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions ) is an excerpt for those 'days':

The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t, the context makes this clear.

The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 in relation to the heavenly bodies.

The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the creation days happened only about 6,000 years ago. It is transparent from the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (which give very detailed chronological information, unlike the clearly abbreviated genealogy in Matthew 1 and other chronological information in the Bible that the Creation Week took place only about 6,000 years ago.

Exodus 20:9–11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:9-11).
This passage gives the reason for God’s command to Israel to work six days and then take a sabbath rest. Yom is used in both parts of the commandment. If God meant that the Jews were to work six days because He created over six long periods of time, He could have said that using one of three indefinite Hebrew time words. He chose the only word that means a literal day, and the Jews understood it literally (until the idea of millions of years developed in the early nineteenth century). For this reason, the day-age view or framework hypothesis must be rejected. The gap theory or any other attempt to put millions of years before the six days are also false because God says that in six days He made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So He made everything in those six literal days and nothing before the first day.

Noah’s Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6–9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark’s purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and seven of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was totally unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals, and birds could have migrated out of the flood zone before it occurred, or the zone could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated “the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth’s surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Noah’s Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

Jesus was a young-earth creationist. Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the “beginning of creation,” not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s teaching on death and on the character of God. Genesis 1 says six times that God called the creation “good,” and when He finished creation on Day 6, He called everything “very good.” Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Gen. 1:29–30, plants are not “living creatures,” as people and animals are, according to Scripture). But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God’s curse they began to die physically. The serpent and Eve were changed physically and the ground itself was cursed (Genesis 3:14–19). The whole creation now groans in bondage to corruption, waiting for the final redemption of Christians (Romans 8:19–25) when we will see the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21, Colossians 1:20) to a state similar to the pre-Fall world, when there will be no more carnivorous behavior (Isaiah11:6–9) and no disease, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:3–5) because there will be no more Curse (Revelation 22:3). To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can’t prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but still calls it all “very good.”

The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts. This idea of long ages was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These men used antibiblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit “deep time” into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments, and they did not defend their views by careful Bible study. The “deep time” idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations.

This is also a good argument against OEC.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?
As for me, a YEC / "futurist" / mid-Acts dispensationalist dirtbag, it's not really an issue of re-interpreting the days/years/etc. of the prophetic clock, but acknowledging that the clock was stopped, so to speak, just prior to the comissioning of Paul.

[dizzle]

As for me, a YEC / "futurist" / mid-Acts dispensationalist dirtbag, it's not really an issue of re-interpreting the days/years/etc. of the prophetic clock, but acknowledging that the clock was stopped, so to speak, just prior to the comissioning of Paul.

That argument is easily dismantled. And why did you use the word "dirtbag," I don't think anything in this thread called for that.

[FlimFlamboyant]

That argument is easily dismantled.
Which part; that the clock was stopped, or that, assuming the clock was stopped, it still doesn't work?

And why did you use the word "dirtbag," I don't think anything in this thread called for that.
Just being facetious. :smile: I know it's not at all a popular position in these parts, but I don't mean to imply that everyone here is necessarily hostile toward people who hold such a view.

[Preterist264]

That's a good question dizzle. I think that it has to do with the fact that quite a few YEC's would come from baptist and other protestant denomination churches that have long been dispensational (prehaps to the degree that they think that it is the only real eschatology) and it is the system that they grew up with and have held for their lives (otherwise known as bible belt eschatology).

Some would also argue for a literalist approach to interpreting both genesis and (largely symbolic) prophetic books like revelation.

Just for the record I am YEC and a preterist. :wink: :pray:

[Lizard]

That's a good question dizzle. I think that it has to do with the fact that quite a few YEC's would come from baptist and other protestant denomination churches that have long been dispensational (prehaps to the degree that they think that it is the only real eschatology) and it is the system that they grew up with and have held for their lives (otherwise known as bible belt eschatology).

Some would also argue for a literalist approach to interpreting both genesis and (largely symbolic) prophetic books like revelation.

Just for the record I am YEC and a preterist. :wink: :pray:
Sounds like me. I came from a Southern Baptist background (heck I still go to an SBC church), grew up YEC and dispy. Today I am neither. So at least some of us born and raised dispy get over it.

[Preterist264]

Sounds like me. I came from a Southern Baptist background (heck I still go to an SBC church), grew up YEC and dispy. Today I am neither. So at least some of us born and raised dispy get over it.

I used to be a dispy baptist, got over it and am currently in the process of converting my family to preterism (with sucess :blush:). :teeth::teeth::lol:

I still think that YEC is the best approach to genesis but I can understand why some would think differantly. :wink:

[Lizard]

I used to be a dispy baptist, got over it and am currently in the process of converting my family to preterism (with sucess :blush:). :teeth::teeth::lol:

I still think that YEC is the best approach to genesis but I can understand why some would think differantly. :wink:
I think the literary framework approach is best. That approach does not rule out YEC, but does not (IMO) necessitate a YEC (or OEC or any age) position.

However, IIRC, Darth Xena takes a YEC approach combined with the literary framework.

My position is that the age of the earth is not a crucial issue (even when I was a dogmatic OEC, I didn't see it as a big issue).

Now my position is "I don't know how old the earth is, I don't care." I think the best scientific evidence is for an old earth, but I think neo-Dawrinian evolution has some serious holes. I also think that too many people rely too heavily on science to form opinions on the age of the earth.

IOW, the best science we have today points to an old earth, but science is always changing and new theories are always springing up.

However, as a former die hard OEC, I do have a special contempt for most YEC "scientist". They are the one group of scientist I have less respect for than evolutionist.

I also see from your post that you are a "Reformed Baptist". :woot: It is always good to have another RB in the house.

[Preterist264]

I think the literary framework approach is best. That approach does not rule out YEC, but does not (IMO) necessitate a YEC (or OEC or any age) position.

However, IIRC, Darth Xena takes a YEC approach combined with the literary framework.

My position is that the age of the earth is not a crucial issue (even when I was a dogmatic OEC, I didn't see it as a big issue).

Now my position is "I don't know how old the earth is, I don't care." I think the best scientific evidence is for an old earth, but I think neo-Dawrinian evolution has some serious holes. I also think that too many people rely too heavily on science to form opinions on the age of the earth.

IOW, the best science we have today points to an old earth, but science is always changing and new theories are always springing up.

However, as a former die hard OEC, I do have a special contempt for most YEC "scientist". They are the one group of scientist I have less respect for than evolutionist.

I also see from your post that you are a "Reformed Baptist". :woot: It is always good to have another RB in the house.

Yeah that's the thing I find about rellying on science since its nature is always changing ultimatly the only one who can tell us how he did it is God. I think I have come to the YEC position more based upon the bible then upon science (which come to think of it my presuppositionalist approach kind of demands that). Not that I am infaliable by any means. :lol:

Now about the reformed church, to be honest right now I'm looking for a new church since the last two I have gone to with my family have been disapointing (the first one was emergant but we had several friends that went there and the second one you did hear the gospel in it, but had too many legalists for us to feel at home). befor ethat we did have two good churches but one of them went liberal legalist on us when the pastor left and the other didn't have enough people to keep going.

I have checked into looking for a reformed church but the nearest reformed baptist church is in toronto 200 Kilometers away (which adds up to a 2 hour drive in GOOD trafic). So for now i'm a reformed wannabe. :wink: :lol:

I would settle for a good baptist church and we have several that we haven't checked out in our community so I'm still hopeful.

[Lizard]

Yeah that's the thing I find about rellying on science since its nature is always changing ultimatly the only one who can tell us how he did it is God. I think I have come to the YEC position more based upon the bible then upon science (which come to think of it my presuppositionalist approach kind of demands that). Not that I am infaliable by any means. :lol:

Now about the reformed church, to be honest right now I'm looking for a new church since the last two I have gone to with my family have been disapointing (the first one was emergant but we had several friends that went there and the second one you did hear the gospel in it, but had too many legalists for us to feel at home). befor ethat we did have two good churches but one of them went liberal legalist on us when the pastor left and the other didn't have enough people to keep going.

I have checked into looking for a reformed church but the nearest reformed baptist church is in toronto 200 Kilometers away (which adds up to a 2 hour drive in GOOD trafic). So for now i'm a reformed wannabe. :wink: :lol:

I would settle for a good baptist church and we have several that we haven't checked out in our community so I'm still hopeful.
There is a Reformed Baptist Church about an hour from my house. I went a couple of time, but it was a bit legalistic (in some ways, very non-legalistic in others) for me. I currently go to a So. Baptist Church that is "Reformed Friendly". We have several Reformed members including a majority of our elders (yes we have elders). Our pastor is not reformed in his soteriology, but he has good deal of reformed thought processes (though he would probably deny that).

[Preterist264]

There is a Reformed Baptist Church about an hour from my house. I went a couple of time, but it was a bit legalistic (in some ways, very non-legalistic in others) for me. I currently go to a So. Baptist Church that is "Reformed Friendly". We have several Reformed members including a majority of our elders (yes we have elders). Our pastor is not reformed in his soteriology, but he has good deal of reformed thought processes (though he would probably deny that).

I think that a church without elders is a bit... lacking since they provide spiritual discernment and are fellow workers with the pastor. I'd be quite happy with a "Reformed friendly" church. :wink:

I guess I'm geting off topic though (can't seem to help it). :blush:

[Lizard]

I think that a church without elders is a bit... lacking since they provide spiritual discernment and are fellow workers with the pastor. I'd be quite happy with a "Reformed friendly" church. :wink:

I guess I'm geting off topic though (can't seem to help it). :blush:

Elder led churches is a must for me. (They can call the plurality of leaders Deacons, Elders, Board of Trustees, or Thingamabobs, but I think a plurality of leadership is the Biblical standard.)

I take church membership very seriously. I take my submission to the leaders of the church very seriously. I can't, in good conscious, submit to a single leader (pastor) who has no accountability to any one else, when the Biblical model is quite clearly a pluaralit of elders.

I came under this conviction about two years ago and as a result left the church I was a member at for 10 years. (There were many other problems I had with this church, but it was the monarchical leadership structure that moved me from disgruntled member to former member).

Don't worry if the thread gets off topic. That happens all the time. We do have a rule that if the person who started the thread ask for the thread to stay on topic, we should keep it on topic. But that has not happened, yet.

[Preterist264]

Elder led churches is a must for me. (They can call the plurality of leaders Deacons, Elders, Board of Trustees, or Thingamabobs, but I think a plurality of leadership is the Biblical standard.)

I take church membership very seriously. I take my submission to the leaders of the church very seriously. I can't, in good conscious, submit to a single leader (pastor) who has no accountability to any one else, when the Biblical model is quite clearly a pluaralit of elders.

I came under this conviction about two years ago and as a result left the church I was a member at for 10 years. (There were many other problems I had with this church, but it was the monarchical leadership structure that moved me from disgruntled member to former member).

Don't worry if the thread gets off topic. That happens all the time. We do have a rule that if the person who started the thread ask for the thread to stay on topic, we should keep it on topic. But that has not happened, yet.

I would agree. :wink:

A church lacking an orginized structure inevitably turns into some kind of single or several famy run church (that's what happened at the first church I attended and even worse they were liberal legalists).

Incidently I just happened to think of several infuluential preterists who would be YEC and came up with Gary Demar, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Dr. K. Gentry and R.C. Sproul so we do exist. :lol:

[Brown Cat]

Not literally. An omnipotent creator cannot also make a square circle.

I wrote in an earlier post:
If there is an omnipotent Creator, such an occurrence (where I was speaking of a literal, six-day creation) is well within His capabilities..

Aside from the question about the time period of creation, I found this to comment about God's ability to create a square circle very thought provoking which brings up (although it is off-topic) the question of God's omnipotence. The answer I came up with was:

Why would God want to? Didn't He get the squares and circles right the first time?

After thinking about God's omnipotence, I came to the conclusion that a proper definition of this divine attribute would be that God is powerful enough to do anything He wants, consistent with His nature, character and purposes. This does not apply to logical impossibilities and absurd questions such as "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?".

[disciple100]

I wrote in an earlier post:
If there is an omnipotent Creator, such an occurrence (where I was speaking of a literal, six-day creation) is well within His capabilities..

Aside from the question about the time period of creation, I found this to comment about God's ability to create a square circle very thought provoking which brings up (although it is off-topic) the question of God's omnipotence. The answer I came up with was:

Why would God want to? Didn't He get the squares and circles right the first time?

After thinking about God's omnipotence, I came to the conclusion that a proper definition of this divine attribute would be that God is powerful enough to do anything He wants, consistent with His nature, character and purposes. This does not apply to logical impossibilities and absurd questions such as "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?".
yeas! :woohoo:

[xcav8tor]

The text says that the sun was created on the fourth day. That is not disputed by any YEC that I know. But it is true you cannot literally have a morning an evening without the sun, since day in itself is a descriptive term describing the turning of the earth on its Axis around the sun and in the length of its travel in orbit around the sun...

This passage supports my very point - in the evening (i.e. when the earth is faced away from the sun in that geographical location) there will be light. But it is still evening as judged by the position of the sun...

But again, no one is denying that there are other light sources other than the sun. But the very definition of an evening and morning is relative to the sun.

Hi dizzle, :smile:

I am a YEC, and also pre-trib, pre-millennial. Your original question is a good one, and I hope to give you my POV later on (notice I didn't say "soon" LOL), but for now I just wanted to address your comments above.

It is my understanding from the context of Gen. 1 NIV and Exo. 20:11 NIV that God created in 6 standard, 24 hour days. I agree with you that a day requires the rotation of the earth about its axis as it travels along it's orbital path. It also requires a source of light dividing the planet into light and dark, morning and evening, day and night. You maintain, however, that the term "day" also requires the existence of the sun which was not created until the 4th day.

To insist that you cannot have a "day" unless you have a "sun" seems to me to be more specific or restrictive than the text requires, especially since God Himself defined what He meant by "day" (Gen. 1:5 NIV) before the sun was even introduced. In fact, the word "sun" isn't even used in the creation account at all (the first mention of "sun" being Gen. 15:12 NIV). The 4th commandment (Exo. 20:9-11 NIV) clearly tells us that God created in SIX DAYS, NOT THREE, but if you are right and there cannot be a day without the sun, then God must have made a mistake. Surely you don't want to go there.

May I suggest that the Glory of God which Jesus shared with the Father in the beginning (John 17:5 NIV) may have been a more than adequate source of light during the first 3 days of creation (Jesus being the spiritual Light of the World initially providing the physical light of the world :wink:). This would provide the requisite localized light source at the same location where the sun would be created a few days later providing continuity until the sun itself was formed.

I feel one reason God may have chosen this order (earth, then sun) was to indicate to people in our day that the evolutionary nebular hypothesis of the solar system's formation is wrong. (While God wrote the Bible to be understood by those who would receive the original writings, He also knows the end from the beginning so it is within His ability and prerogative to provide details which could also only be understood by future generations).

It is interesting in this regard (assuming what I have read is true) that the sun does not lie in the exact center of the earth's orbit. If you draw a slight ellipse representing the earth's orbit (with the winter solstice at the top, the summer solstice at the bottom) and divide it horizontally and vertically through the center, the sun is not located at this intersection, but off-center towards the winter solstice.

If you start the earth's orbit where the ellipse meets the horizontal line on the right side (Sept. 20), and travel 4 days along its path (counterclockwise), you reach the autumnal equinox of Sept. 23 (the vernal equinox correspondingly aligned on the left side of the ellipse). If you then at this 4th day point draw another horizontal line through the ellipse parallel to the first one, it intersects the vertical line where the sun would be.

So IF creation of the earth took place on day One (Sunday, Sept. 20, X B.C.) and we follow along the earth's orbit until the sun was created 3 days later (on the Fourth day, Wednesday, Sept 23 - the autumn equinox), we find that a horizontal line drawn through the earth's orbit at this point passes exactly through the sun's location. Although this could be written off as mere coincidence, I think it could be God giving us another hint about taking the days in Genesis 1 literally.

IMHO what constitutes a "day" is not the existence of the sun itself, but rather
1) a powerful and localized source of heat and light
2) sending light rays to the earth
3) as the earth rotates on its axis
4) along its orbital path
5) creating an alternating pattern of light and dark which we experience as day and night.

Whether that source of light is the Glory of God (one logical possibility supported by 1 Tim. 6:16 NIV and Rev. 21:23 NIV), some unknown temporary source, or the sun which was created on the fourth day makes no functional difference as far as a DAY on the planet is concerned. Of course, since the sun's creation, all normal days do involve light from the sun, but that doesn't prevent the use of the term "day" prior to the sun's creation. We are only following God's own example when we call the first 3 creation periods "days."

Btw, if not "days," what do you call the first three days before the sun was created? Do you have any scriptural support for naming them anything other than "days"? I am assuming that you consider them all to be of the same duration.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[disciple100]

I think that is a good interpretation.

[xcav8tor]

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?

Hi dizzle, :smile:

As I said in my earlier post, good question. Let me take it one step at a time.

First, I take the creation account in Genesis at face value for several reasons but I'll mention three:

1) Christ's example. The way Christ and the apostles quote from Genesis indicates that they read it at face value as referring to real people and historical events. Jesus not only treated Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Lot's wife and Abraham as actual individuals, He also compared His second coming to the days of Noah and Lot. If Jesus were to use allegorical events and fictional people as examples of what to expect at His second coming, the comparison would undermine His credibility just as Luke would lose his if when tracing Christ's genealogy back to the beginning, Adam were a mere fiction instead of an actual human being.

2) The choice of words. Since God described the days of Genesis as light and dark, day and night, morning and evening, and numbered them, it seems He was bending over backward to tell us they were normal days. Even in the 4th commandment God equates the work week with the Sabbath off to the creation week, which makes no sense if they are not the same units of measure. In fact, if God DID intend to communicate normal days, there are no other or better words He could have used to do so. Since the available Hebrew words for "ages" or unspecified periods were NOT chosen, and God was more than able to create the universe instantaneously, it seems to me the "days" were simply "days."

3) Linguistic Hebrew scholarship. This plain-sense interpretation is supported by Professor James Barr, Hebrew Scholar at Oxford University in England on the meaning of Genesis:

“Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

(From a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984 – Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonize with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different. It was nothing to do with the text itself.)

When it comes to the Second Coming, I take the same approach. In Mat. 24:15-31 NIV and Mat. 25:31-34 NIV Jesus connects 5 events together:

1) SO WHEN YOU SEE standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation’, spoken of through the prophet Daniel (vs 15)

2) FOR THEN THERE WILL BE GREAT DISTRESS, UNEQUALLED from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equalled again. (vs 21)

3) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DISTRESS of those days... THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING on the clouds of the sky, WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. (vs 29, 30)

4) WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES IN HIS GLORY, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE GATHERED BEFORE HIM, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (25, vs 31, 32)

5) THEN THE KING WILL SAY to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; TAKE YOUR INHERITANCE, THE KINGDOM prepared for you since the creation of the world. 25, vs 34)

To consistently take these texts at face value logically requires that I link together in succession the abomination, the "unequalled" tribulation period, Christ's Second Coming in power and great glory, the gathering/judgment of the nations, and the entrance of the sheep into the millennial kingdom.

Btw, the reference to His "coming" in power and glory must refer to His Second Coming and not His first as His First Coming was not one of power and glory, and neither did He light up the sky as described in verse 27: "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Can I honestly say that I can find in history: an abomination of the Jewish temple WHICH TRIGGERED a tribulation period which has never been equalled throughout history AND WHICH ended with Christ's Coming in power and glory, lighting up the sky from one end to the other FOLLOWED BY a division between believers and non-believers AFTER WHICH the "goats" were destroyed and the "sheep" entered God's kingdom.

The answer is an unequivocal "No."

The TIMING GIVEN of these events show that EACH FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY on the heels of the other in a CONSECUTIVE MANNER. As I cannot be convinced that we are now enjoying Christ's Millennial reign (I certainly don't see world peace, or the wolf laying down with the lamb, or children living to a hundred years Zec. 9-10 NIV, Isa. 11:6-9 NIV Isa. 65:20-25 NIV) this COMPELS ME to put these 5 LINKED EVENTS in our future.

As The Curtmudgeon has observed, I am obliged by consistency to take the 1,000 year millennium (the number being repeated 5 times within 5 verses Rev. 20:2-7 NIV) at face value. Once the link between these events is established, and Christ's Millennial reign admitted as a future event, then the ENTIRE SET of events must also be future.

Looking at Dan. 9:24-27, it speaks of a final 70th week of 7 years, divided in the middle by the abomination of desolation, giving 2 periods of 3 1/2 Biblical years (of 360 days according to the Jewish calendar). This fits perfectly with the time divisions of the Book of Revelation, which is broken up into periods of 1260 days (the first half of the 7 yrs when the witnesses testify Rev. 11:3 NIV and the second half when the woman/Israel is protected in the wilderness Rev. 12:6 NIV), 42 months (the second half when the gentiles trample Jerusalem Rev. 11:2 NIV and the beast/Antichrist continues his rule Rev. 13:5 NKJV) and 3 1/2 times (yrs), again describing Israel's safety in the wilderness Rev. 12:14 NIV.

So from the scriptures cited above, I feel I have no alternative but to take the creation days in Genesis as standard days, AND the days and months of Revelation as written AND the future millennium spoken of in Revelation as a thousand years AND I also have to honour the consecutive sequence of events which Jesus locked together in Matthew's gospel.

So then what is to be made of the assorted texts which speak of Christ's return as "soon," "at hand," and "near" etc.? As I do not believe the scriptures contradict themselves, and also being unable to consider Christ's Second Coming a past event (which as I understand it is not your position either - you would say the "coming" recorded by Matthew is a metaphorical "coming in judgment" as Lizard explained to me - correct?), I have to try to reconcile my otherwise consistent position with these numerous "anomalous" verses while maintaining the integrity of the writers. Although I do not claim to have all the answers, here is how I deal with some of them (please excuse any omissions, as I'm only going from memory).

Mat. 24:34 NIV I believe the "this generation" Jesus is referring to is not primarily the one to which He was speaking (though some of the events described would apply to them as well) but the one which would would see "all these things" - ie. the "birth pangs" signs at the beginning of the discourse (an unprecedented rise in false Christs, wars between nations, famines, disease, earthquakes), and most importantly, the rebirth of Israel as a nation (the budding of the fig tree in verse 32).

Just as Antiochus Epiphanes foreshadowed the final Antichrist who is still to come by desecrating the temple in 167 B.C. without exhausting the meaning of Daniel's prophesies, so neither did the destruction of Jerusalem during the generation of Jesus' day completely exhaust the "great tribulation" that will ultimately be experienced by "this generation" in the days leading up to Christ's physical Second Coming.

Mat. 16:28 NIV Jesus says here that there were some there who would not experience death before they "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." First I'd like to point out that this could not mean that they would see Jesus literally come back in the first century or we have a failed prophecy. Matthew continues in the next chapter giving the account of Christ's transfiguration, a glimpse of His personal glory. If this is considered a foretaste of His glorious return, it might be what Jesus had in mind (just as John the Baptist coming in the spirit and power of Elijah - if they would receive it - was a partial fulfillment of Mal. 4:5 NIV which speaks of Elijah's future return, perhaps as one of the 2 witnesses of Rev. 11:3-6 NIV ).

Another possible resolution is the apostle John being given the vision of Christ's Second Coming on Patmos. He still "saw" it, even though what he actually saw would take place in the distant future.

1 John 2:18 NIV The apostle says "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." John is obviously convinced it is "the last hour," but does this mean he believed he was in the last days and that Christ would return before the end of the century?

He believed that "The" Antichrist was still to come, but the existence of "many Antichrists" indicated they were in the last "hour" (obviously not the last literal 60 minutes or there was no point him writing his letter - no one would get to read it in time). Since "last hour" must be figurative, one might assume John is referring to the time between his writing and Christ's return which is characterized by the spirit of Antichrist. Can this be understood to accommodate 2000 years? It certainly seems to be a stretch. :wink:

Perhaps in this instance, John had in mind the immanent destruction of Jerusalem (its last hour) and NOT the Day of the Lord (the "Last Days" leading up to Christ's return). It may be that, not yet having been shown the Revelation, he did not yet understand that "The" Antichrist would not be coming for a long time yet.

Rev. 1:1 NIV speaks of what must take place "soon." Rev. 1:3 NIV Blessed are those who read John's prophecy because "the time is at hand." Rev. 22:10 NIV John is told not to seal the book because "the time is near." What time?

The first answer that comes to mind is the time of Christ's Second Coming in glory. If this is true, then either John is describing time from God's POV (2 Pet. 3:8-10 NIV ), or John is mistaken. This problem is the same for both orthodox preterists and futurists because we both agree that Christ's physical return is still future.

There is another possibility. Rev. 1:19 NIV divides up what John sees into 3 components:
1) what you have seen (his vision of Christ in verse 12-18)
2) what is now (the church age in chapters 2 and 3) and
3) what will take place later (the events of the tribulation, Armageddon and Christ's return)

If this is a valid interpretation, and the letters to the churches describe not only 7 actual churches but 7 "types" of churches, and 7 "periods" of church history, then what is said to be "soon, near, at hand" is Christ's rule over the church, which when the church age is completed and the church is raptured, then the final events of Daniel's 70th week take place, preparing the Jews to accept their Messiah when He appears in the sky to rescue them. IOW, if we take these letters to the churches as indicative of the ages of church history, then that time certainly was "at hand," beginning with the first church:

Ephesus, the apostolic church (30-100 A.D.)
Smyrna, the persecuted church (100-313 A.D.)
Pergamos, the state church (313-590 A.D.)
Thyatira, the papal church (590-1517 A.D.)
Sardis, the reformed church (1517-1730 A.D.)
Philadelphia, the missionary church (1730-1900 A.D.)
Laodocea, the apostate church (1900 to present...)
- dates above suggested by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, though others give similar numbers

This certainly would explain why the book was not to be "sealed" as the messages to the churches was immediately and continuously relevant.

Rev. 22:12 NIV and Rev. 22:20 NIV Jesus says He is coming "soon," or "quickly" and His reward is with Him. Surely this presents a similar problem to orthodox preterists who agree that Christ's Second Coming in glory is still future. If "soon" is meant, then Jesus did not come "soon" in the usual sense of the term as it has been 2,000 years already. If "quickly" is a better translation, then it may just mean that when events of Revelation begin to unfold, His return will follow swiftly.

Anyway, I hope this to some small degree helps satisfy your curiosity about YECs who are futurists.

Cheers,
xcav8tor

[disciple100]

That was an excellent barrage there xcav8tor!

May I add something more though? Another thing that I think many people here will find interesting is that when the ancients said something was going to be happening soon, they also expected a delay. Like when they say expect Him tomorrow, but He will be delayed. I think we are getting a little bit carried away with specifics when it comes to the future here.

Jesus doesn't even know when the final resurrection is going to happen, why should we?

[xcav8tor]

Hi disciple100, :smile:

Another thing that I think many people here will find interesting is that when the ancients said something was going to be happening soon, they also expected a delay. Like when they say expect Him tomorrow, but He will be delayed.

Never heard that before. Do you have a source?

I think we are getting a little bit carried away with specifics when it comes to the future here.

I am sure you do not believe any of us here are date setters, so I take it the "specifics" you are referring to are future events (like the appearance of the antichrist, the building of a third temple, etc). We can only be as specific as the Bible is - or appears to be.

Of course by that I mean according to our own understanding of what the Bible "specifically" says - like where I take the budding of the "fig tree" to mean the rebirth of the nation of Israel. Our personal understanding could be incorrect and we should all be ever mindful of that fact in discussions with those holding other opinions on controversial and non-essential areas like eschatology.

And just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I am not inferring that anyone in this thread does not allow for the possibility that they could be mistaken, but I have come across some on other forums who have not yet come to grips with their own fallibility (and they don't even know who they are :clueless: ).

Jesus doesn't even know when the final resurrection is going to happen, why should we?

It is my personal opinion that after Christ's resurrection and glorification, He has reasserted His full prerogatives of Deity (post-resurrection: Mat. 28:18 NIV, John 21:17 NIV) and would NOW be aware of the exact time of His return and the timetable for the various resurrections. Since the Bible is silent about Jesus now having this specific knowledge, however, others are free to disagree. :teeth:

Cheers,
xcav8tor

[{Tim}]

Rev. 22:12 NIV and Rev. 22:20 NIV Jesus says He is coming "soon," or "quickly" and His reward is with Him. Surely this presents a similar problem to orthodox preterists who agree that Christ's Second Coming in glory is still future. If "soon" is meant, then Jesus did not come "soon" in the usual sense of the term as it has been 2,000 years already. If "quickly" is a better translation, then it may just mean that when events of Revelation begin to unfold, His return will follow swiftly.

Anyway, I hope this to some small degree helps satisfy your curiosity about YECs who are futurists.

Cheers,
xcav8tor

To fill in until DD answers...

Preterists would agree that Jesus' second coming in glory is still future.
Preterists would not agree that Jesus' second coming in glory is the "coming" spoken of in Revelation.

I think Dee Dee would like to know how "soon; within this generation; some now living will not taste death" can actually mean "a long time away; within some other generation; everyone alive now will be dead" -- especially in light of taking "day" literally in genesis.

[xcav8tor]

To fill in until DD answers...

Preterists would agree that Jesus' second coming in glory is still future.
Preterists would not agree that Jesus' second coming in glory is the "coming" spoken of in Revelation.

I think Dee Dee would like to know how "soon; within this generation; some now living will not taste death" can actually mean "a long time away; within some other generation; everyone alive now will be dead" -- especially in light of taking "day" literally in genesis.

Hi Tim, :smile:

I'm learning more and more. I knew preterists do not believe the Olivet Discourse spoke of Christ's Second Coming in Glory, but that you also do not believe that Revelation (ch. 19 in particular) speaks of this is news to me. It raises the question of what NT passages and words of Christ you DO believe talk about this. Perhaps you'd like to fill me in.

As to your clarification of what Dee Dee would like to know, I thought I had covered those points. Her original post reads (my italics):

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?

I took this to mean that her primary purpose was not to debate YECs on this issue, but to satisfy her curiousity as to why we believe our claimed "at face-value" approach provides a consistent interpretation of Genesis, Matthew and Revelation. In my earlier post I tried to address this by demonstrating why I took the creation days in Genesis as 24 hour days, how Christ's timing clues linking 5 events in Matthew convinces me why they must pertain to our future, and how the comparable times in both Daniel and Revelation appear to both use the same measure of days, months and years as typical of the 360-day Jewish calendar of 30-day months which would also suggest the Millennium should be understood as 1,000 years (I am unaware of any reason a normal 1,000 yr period cannot be a part of God's plan).

I also offered my thoughts on how I try to reconcile this with some of the time clues which convinced her to adopt the preterist position. I do not expect her to agree of course. I was merely trying to explain my perspective and why I feel it is a fairly consistent conclusion (though I do not presume to have all the answers - I don't think anyone does).

Btw, I have great respect for Dee Dee. While I have not yet had time to read her cyber-commentary on Mat. 24, I have tagged it for future reference. Obviously she has invested a great deal of study on this topic, and the clear respect she has garnered from many Twebbers whom I already respected certainly earns her a high degree of credibility in my book. I would be very reluctant to enter a debate with her (discretion being the better part of valour, as it were :wink:).

I am, however, most curious as to how she would reply to timing of the five linked events I mentioned (though I don't for a moment think she doesn't have one).

Regards,
xcav8tor

[dizzle]

xcav8tor, since this thread was originally started I have been seduced mightily by something which glows in the shape of an Apple. However, 90% of your questions are answered in the commentary already written.

What I am doing is marking threads that need lengthy responses for future podcast episodes. It is about the only way I have time nowadays. I realize my commentary is freakin' huge at this point and it is unreasonable to expect everyone intereacting with me to have read it. For anyone though who is really has a need to know the answers to those questions now, they are addressed therein. I could copy and paste them here, but I know I don't have the time at the present moment to continue which wouldn't be fair to you. So I am adding this thread to delicious and will speak on it.

However, Jorge and an obnoxious Mormon (no I am not linking the two in any other way than their crappy debate methodology) are first in line.

However, since the first posting, I think there are far more convincing reasons NOT to take "day" literally than there are to not take prophetic timing statement at their face value since that is the only test God has given of us to determine if someone is a false prophet.

I still do take "day" literally BTW, I just think that those who don't can justify their reasons much more convincingly then those who don't take "this generation" to mean what it appears to mean.

[xcav8tor]

xcav8tor, since this thread was originally started I have been seduced mightily by something which glows in the shape of an Apple. However, 90% of your questions are answered in the commentary already written... I could copy and paste them here, but I know I don't have the time at the present moment to continue which wouldn't be fair to you. So I am adding this thread to delicious and will speak on it...

I still do take "day" literally BTW, I just think that those who don't can justify their reasons much more convincingly then those who don't take "this generation" to mean what it appears to mean.

Hi dizzle, :smile:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand you are busy, and it is not productive to repeat answers over and over again. As 90% of them are in your commentary, I look forward to reading it as I am able (and with an open mind).

As I explained, I was just trying to satisfy your curiosity by providing you with my personal POV - nothing more. I do strive for consistency, even though you may not recognize it as such. As I see it, there are problems with both views, though after reading your cyber-book I may shift my perspective (stranger things have happened :wink:)

Cheers,
xcav8tor

[{Tim}]

Hi Tim, :smile:

I'm learning more and more. I knew preterists do not believe the Olivet Discourse spoke of Christ's Second Coming in Glory, but that you also do not believe that Revelation (ch. 19 in particular) speaks of this is news to me. It raises the question of what NT passages and words of Christ you DO believe talk about this. Perhaps you'd like to fill me in.Well, I am not exactly an expect on these matters, so you will have to take my thought as a layman's commentary, FWIW. However, as I understand it...

Most of revelation is an indictment against the nation of israel for rejecting her messiah, and most of the apocalyptic judgements described there are finally visited upon Jerusalem when the romans destroyed it in AD 70 -- JP Holding describes it as " a "covenant lawsuit" document charging the Jewish people with infidelity to the Deuteronomic covenant." on his site. In fact, his article on Revelation probably explains how preterists view it much better than I would... http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html



I am, however, most curious as to how she would reply to timing of the five linked events I mentioned (though I don't for a moment think she doesn't have one).

Regards,
xcav8torI think preterists would see a disconnect between the events in Ch. 24 and Ch. 25. A little bit of research has found Holding's explanation... [i]"But surely this has not happened? Actually it has, and still does. All agree that the Bible teaches that judgment is entered upon death (Heb. 9:27). ... As DeMar rightly says, this depicts a "judgment over time"."
So ch. 24 speaks of Jesus' coming in earthly judgment of Jerusalem; ch.25 speaks of him sitting down to exercise heavenly judgment on the dead. (This fits with the preterist understanding that the events of AD 70 was when Jesus 'entered into his kingdom', and took his place at the right hand of the Father.)

JP's main page for eschatology is found here (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html)... you might read that along with Dee Dee' s article. (Yeah, more reading! :ahem:)

Hope that explained a bit, anyway.

~ Tim

[disciple100]

my source is chapter 15 of Paul Copan's book, When God Goes to Starbucks.

In the beginning of the chapter (Was Jesus Mistaken about an Early Second Coming? Part One) Copan says "First, 2 Peter 3 isn't a hasty attempt to make sense of why Jesus hadn't returned yet; rather, it reflects Jewish apocolyptic tradition that exhibits the tension between immediacy (imminence) and delay."

He goes on the say "In Jewish apocalyptic tradition, there's a tension:God is on the brink of breaking in (imminence, immediacy) but there is also room for delay, which is part of God's sovereign plan. This tension ... is evident in the [OT] verse commonly cited by apocalyptic authors: "For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay" (Hab. 2:3 NIV, [Copan's] emphasis) Also, Daniel spoke of both immediacy ("Do not delay," 9:19) and delay ("How long ...?" 12:6)."

Pages 164-5 of Paul Copan's When God Goes to Starbucks