Come all ye Orthodox Preterists

[TolkienFan]

Hey guys. I started this thread because of something said by my Economics teacher. I respect this man very much and he is very educated, but I recently discovered that he converted from Partial/Orthodox Preterism to Full Preterism. After class, I asked why. He said that he was convinced by a translation in the Amplified Bible of Revelation 1:1 that goes as follows:

[THIS IS] the revelation of Jesus Christ [His unveiling of the divine mysteries]. God gave it to Him to disclose and make known to His bond servants certain things which must shortly and speedily come to pass [a]in their entirety. And He sent and communicated it through His angel (messenger) to His bond servant John,
(found at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...698a)(emphasis mine)

This is of course contrary to the translation in NIV or NASB as follows:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
(found at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31;)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which (A)God gave Him to (B)show to His bond-servants, (C)the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it (D)by His angel to His bond-servant (E)John,
(found at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=49;)

My initial rebuttal goes like this:

(1) I cannot honestly say that I know the Greek behind this (could someone help me!). However, unless you can muster evidence that the Amplified Bible has the right translation while the rest of the Bible versions do not, I will have to side with the near-consensus.

(2) It is on the verge of solipsism to convert because of this. I would have advised that you do more study and see if there is a solution to this before you radically change your frame of thought. Having a view with one problem you cannot yet explain is better than having a view that is outright heresy.

(3) Do you really think that the final judgment of Satan (as well as that of the world) has already passed? How can you really explain Revelation logically after 20:6?

There may be more as I think of this issue, but this is enough for now. If you have anything you want to add or correct, please, by all means, respond.

[Bill the Cat]

Heck, I'm a Fututist, and I know that the Amplified Bible is wrong on this...

[Faramir]

Hey guys. I started this thread because of something said by my Economics teacher. I respect this man very much and he is very educated, but I recently discovered that he converted from Partial/Orthodox Preterism to Full Preterism. After class, I asked why. He said that he was convinced by a translation in the Amplified Bible of Revelation 1:1 that goes as follows:



This is of course contrary to the translation in NIV or NASB as follows:





My initial rebuttal goes like this:

(1) I cannot honestly say that I know the Greek behind this (could someone help me!). However, unless you can muster evidence that the Amplified Bible has the right translation while the rest of the Bible versions do not, I will have to side with the near-consensus.

(2) It is on the verge of solipsism to convert because of this. I would have advised that you do more study and see if there is a solution to this before you radically change your frame of thought. Having a view with one problem you cannot yet explain is better than having a view that is outright heresy.

(3) Do you really think that the final judgment of Satan (as well as that of the world) has already passed? How can you really explain Revelation logically after 20:6?

There may be more as I think of this issue, but this is enough for now. If you have anything you want to add or correct, please, by all means, respond.

Even if the Amplified Bible is right (I don't think it is, but I have never been a big fan of the AB), Rev. 20:3 (I even used the AB in case there was any question:

Scripture Verse:

Then he hurled him into the Abyss (the bottomless pit) and closed it and sealed it above him, so that he should no longer lead astray and deceive and seduce the nations until the thousand years were at an end. After that he must be liberated for a short time.

How can the things in Rev. "in their entirety" be completed and yet 1000 years has to pass?

Or, to put it another way. I (and orthodox preterist) do believe that "the entirety" of Revelation came to pass shortly after it was written. But that includes the inauguration of the 1000 years. IOW, the "shortly come to pass" is not the same thing as "shortly consumated" or "shortly completed".

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Lizard the n00b

How can the things in Rev. "in their entirety" be completed and yet 1000 years has to pass?

Or, to put it another way. I (and orthodox preterist) do believe that "the entirety" of Revelation came to pass shortly after it was written. But that includes the inauguration of the 1000 years. IOW, the "shortly come to pass" is not the same thing as "shortly consumated" or "shortly completed".

Why didn't I think of that? Thanks for the help Lizard.

[TolkienFan]

Okay, I pressed my teacher further about his full preterist beliefs. I asked him the question Lizard posed, but he of course had an answer. I kind of expected an appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 about the whole day=1,000 years, 1,000 years=day equation. But he added something else, he thinks that this is an allusion to Revelation. Also, when I told him that things coming to pass didn't necessarily mean they would be consummated, he said that the original readers would have been under the impression that the latter meaning was intended. I admit I didn't put him through my initial rebuttal (which may or may not have got him back) for whatever reason, but I do think he already shot himself in the foot here.

(1) The appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 doesn't make each and every instance of 1,000 years equal a day. Besides that, this is saying that to the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day. This is referring strictly to the concept of the timelessness of God (due to the fact that He lives outside of it).

(2) Tied in with this is that it is unnecessary to say that Peter is alluding to Revelation. He could have been (unlikely as it is), but even so Peter was not making an equation here, he was just referencing a theological concept.

(3) According to church tradition (as shown at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) Peter spent the last portion of his life in Rome where he was martyred between July, 64 and the beginning of 68. 2 Peter was obviously written shortly before the date of Peter's death (whatever that may be). Preterists following Kenneth Gentry's date say Revelation was written between November, 64 and spring of 67 with 65 being the favored date (Gentry, Kenneth. The Beast of Revelation, p.188). Worst-case scenario, Peter died before Revelation was even written. But let's check the best-case scenario that Peter died around the beginning of 68 and Revelation was written in late 64. In this case, we have to ask a couple questions. Did Peter know of this book at all despite the fact that it was addressed to churches far away from Rome? That is a possibility (but not a likely one). Even if this was so, did the audience Peter was addressing not only know of the book but have such knowledge of the contents? This is very highly unlikely unless he was writing strictly to the members of the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 who would have known the contents best. Besides that, we don't know how long it took for Revelation to reach the seven churches. It might not have even been sent until John left Patmos.

(4) If the AB is wrong here (which is the verdict pending further evidence), the manuscripts have no such phrase and thus the original readers would not have understood it this way because the phrase didn't exist (could someone help with the Greek?).

There may be more later, but once again additions and corrections are welcome.

[John Reece]

If the AB is wrong here (which is the verdict pending further evidence), the manuscripts have no such phrase and thus the original readers would not have understood it this way because the phrase didn't exist (could someone help with the Greek?).

The phrase in question ("in their entirety") has no basis in the Greek text, which is fully and accurately represented by the Good New Bible: Today's English Version:

Revelation 1:1a. This book is the record of events that Jesus Christ revealed. God gave him this revelation in order to show to his servants what must happen very soon ([greek]a dei genesqai en tacei[/greek]).

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by John Reece

The phrase in question ("in their entirety") has no basis in the Greek text, which is fully and accurately represented by the Good New Bible: Today's English Version:

Revelation 1:1a. This book is the record of events that Jesus Christ revealed. God gave him this revelation in order to show to his servants what must happen very soon (α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει).

Thank you very much for this helpful post!

[Faramir]

Okay, I pressed my teacher further about his full preterist beliefs. I asked him the question Lizard posed, but he of course had an answer. I kind of expected an appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 about the whole day=1,000 years, 1,000 years=day equation. But he added something else, he thinks that this is an allusion to Revelation. Also, when I told him that things coming to pass didn't necessarily mean they would be consummated, he said that the original readers would have been under the impression that the latter meaning was intended. I admit I didn't put him through my initial rebuttal (which may or may not have got him back) for whatever reason, but I do think he already shot himself in the foot here.

(1) The appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 doesn't make each and every instance of 1,000 years equal a day. Besides that, this is saying that to the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day. This is referring strictly to the concept of the timelessness of God (due to the fact that He lives outside of it).

The context of 2 Peter 3:8 was that it was addressed to Christians who were expecting "the coming" (i.e. the judgment on Jerusalem, the upheaval of the old sacrifice system, the validation of Jesus Messiahship, etc.) It did not mean "every time text in scripture from here on out is meaningless.

Because that is the real result of taking 2 Pet. 3:8 in the way your teacher does.

This is the same argument, in reverse, that futurist use to ignore the meaning of the words "soon" and "shortly come to pass" in Rev. 1.

If 2 Peter 3:8 negates the 1000 years in Rev. 20, it also negates "soon" in Revelation 1.

[mikewhitney]

The 1000s years phrase in Rev 20 appears to be a parenthetical phrase. Like was said earlier, the beginning of this era was beginning shortly. But the very mention of "1000" indicated that the passage was going beyond the scope of the immediately occurring events.
It seems that the parenthetical phrase was used to clarify the topics of judgment and resurrection. And in order to do the clarification, John went a bit off the central topic of the soon-to-be events.

[Bill the Cat]

Thank you very much for this helpful post!

If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to John Reese...

[Raphael]

If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to John Reese...

You'd be a very rich man indeed

[TheNewAddiction]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Hyperpreterism is not permitted in this forum area which is for orthodox eschatologies. Please feel free to post about hyperpreterism in the Unorthodox Theology Section

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Hitch]

If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to John Reese...

Wotrh repeating Cat


Im yet to come acroos a Hymie yet who doesnt follow the DFs in a ridiculous application of wooden literalsim somwwhere..

[Hitch]

If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to John Reese...

Worth repeating Cat


Im yet to come across a Hymie yet who doesnt follow the DFs in a ridiculous application of wooden literalsim somwwhere..