Two needed eschatological reforms

[EarlyActs]

Here are two reforms that are needed to get to effective eschatology.

1, we need to see from the NT letters in normal language (not Judaic symbolism in the Rev), that the final day of judgement is quickly over. It nearly happened in the 1st century. The believers are picked up by Christ just before this, and the next thing they know is the comfort of his arms, along with all who preceded them in the NHNE.

2, the material before Mt 24:29 (matching that of Mk 13 and Luke 13, 15, 17, 19, 21) is a rather detailed account of the conclusion of Dan 9 in 1st century Judea, on time and as expected. See some of the same language in Mt 10 as in 24. It was the full wrath of God upon Israel. "He" of 9:27a is Christ, confirming the new covenant and ending the Judaic tradition at the temple. The person who desolates the place is mentioned in 27b.

This should eliminate all the clatter about the rapture and the mill as way below the line of necessary detail. For ex., the most complete non-symbolic passage of the NT on the future (2 P 3) mentions neither of them, but satisfies all the questions.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Here are two reforms that are needed to get to effective eschatology.

1, we need to see from the NT letters in normal language (not Judaic symbolism in the Rev), that the final day of judgement is quickly over. It nearly happened in the 1st century. The believers are picked up by Christ just before this, and the next thing they know is the comfort of his arms, along with all who preceded them in the NHNE.

2, the material before Mt 24:29 (matching that of Mk 13 and Luke 13, 15, 17, 19, 21) is a rather detailed account of the conclusion of Dan 9 in 1st century Judea, on time and as expected. See some of the same language in Mt 10 as in 24. It was the full wrath of God upon Israel. "He" of 9:27a is Christ, confirming the new covenant and ending the Judaic tradition at the temple. The person who desolates the place is mentioned in 27b.

This should eliminate all the clatter about the rapture and the mill as way below the line of necessary detail. For ex., the most complete non-symbolic passage of the NT on the future (2 P 3) mentions neither of them, but satisfies all the questions.

Untrue. What is required is an accurate understanding of God's symbolism used across the entirety of Scripture - Old and New Testaments.

 

[CrowCross]

Untrue. What is required is an accurate understanding of God's symbolism used across the entirety of Scripture - Old and New Testaments.

EA fails to realize Revelation is future.

 

[TMSO]

Here are two reforms that are needed to get to effective eschatology.

1, we need to see from the NT letters in normal language (not Judaic symbolism in the Rev), that the final day of judgement is quickly over. It nearly happened in the 1st century. The believers are picked up by Christ just before this, and the next thing they know is the comfort of his arms, along with all who preceded them in the NHNE.

2, the material before Mt 24:29 (matching that of Mk 13 and Luke 13, 15, 17, 19, 21) is a rather detailed account of the conclusion of Dan 9 in 1st century Judea, on time and as expected. See some of the same language in Mt 10 as in 24. It was the full wrath of God upon Israel. "He" of 9:27a is Christ, confirming the new covenant and ending the Judaic tradition at the temple. The person who desolates the place is mentioned in 27b.

This should eliminate all the clatter about the rapture and the mill as way below the line of necessary detail. For ex., the most complete non-symbolic passage of the NT on the future (2 P 3) mentions neither of them, but satisfies all the questions.

I'm not sure I will get a response

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall [j]be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a [k]covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the [l]desolate.”

1. The final day of judgement is quickly over, however, it is still sitting at imminent as it hasn't happened yet. Quickly over does not mean that it will start any time soon. The NHNE are not here yet. Do you truly believe God would allow His NHNE and New Jerusalem to be corrupted by sin? Is sin not the reason God destroys the first heavens and Earth?

2. If you look at the NKJV rendering (it is also in the KJV), you will notice that we have "Himself" in 26 (capitalized since it refers to Jesus), and in 27 we have "he", not capitalized, which means it doesn't represent Jesus. In King James, any pronoun connected to God, the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit is capitalized. Granted, those scholars didn't have a clue what they were doing, but is that a valid argument? You will note the "He" capitalized in 27 is at the beginning of a line, and you will notice that all the letters at the beginning of a line are capitalized, so it is due to the writing style. If you want a real eye opener, read this verse in the LXX.

The he, confirms the covenant for a week. (7 years. Confirmed. Oaths made.) This same "he" then breaks/violates the covenant after 3 1/2 years. So, since we know that God's nature includes faithfulness, do you still believe that the One you say is the "he" in 27a, is who you say He is, considering this person violates/breaks the covenant He has confirmed? Do you have any explicit scripture that shows God violating a covenant He has made/confirmed, where it states it is God?

Please note that when you read all of verse 26 and take it all together, it is talking about a lot more than 7 years. So after the 62 weeks (69 weeks), the Messiah shall be cut off. What else happens in this block of "And after the sixty-two weeks"? Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. But wait, the Messiah was cut off around the late 20's AD, or early 30s AD, but the city and sanctuary are not destroyed until 70AD. We already have a pause. And there is no way to know how long the pause will be. Why? "The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined." Look at the end of 27 "Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." It is possibly parallel to the end of verse 26.

LXX: "27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation." Does this at all mean that the end of the 70th week coincides with the end of time?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I'm not sure I will get a response

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall [j]be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a [k]covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the [l]desolate.”

1. The final day of judgement is quickly over, however, it is still sitting at imminent as it hasn't happened yet. Quickly over does not mean that it will start any time soon. The NHNE are not here yet. Do you truly believe God would allow His NHNE and New Jerusalem to be corrupted by sin? Is sin not the reason God destroys the first heavens and Earth?

2. If you look at the NKJV rendering (it is also in the KJV), you will notice that we have "Himself" in 26 (capitalized since it refers to Jesus), and in 27 we have "he", not capitalized, which means it doesn't represent Jesus. In King James, any pronoun connected to God, the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit is capitalized. Granted, those scholars didn't have a clue what they were doing, but is that a valid argument? You will note the "He" capitalized in 27 is at the beginning of a line, and you will notice that all the letters at the beginning of a line are capitalized, so it is due to the writing style. If you want a real eye opener, read this verse in the LXX.

The he, confirms the covenant for a week. (7 years. Confirmed. Oaths made.) This same "he" then breaks/violates the covenant after 3 1/2 years. So, since we know that God's nature includes faithfulness, do you still believe that the One you say is the "he" in 27a, is who you say He is, considering this person violates/breaks the covenant He has confirmed? Do you have any explicit scripture that shows God violating a covenant He has made/confirmed, where it states it is God?

Please note that when you read all of verse 26 and take it all together, it is talking about a lot more than 7 years. So after the 62 weeks (69 weeks), the Messiah shall be cut off. What else happens in this block of "And after the sixty-two weeks"? Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. But wait, the Messiah was cut off around the late 20's AD, or early 30s AD, but the city and sanctuary are not destroyed until 70AD. We already have a pause. And there is no way to know how long the pause will be. Why? "The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined." Look at the end of 27 "Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." It is possibly parallel to the end of verse 26.

LXX: "27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation." Does this at all mean that the end of the 70th week coincides with the end of time?

It would be good for your education to learn a little about the Hebrew language. There are NO CAPITAL letters in Hebrew. So making any statement based on what English translators decided to capitalize is quite ignorant.

 

[TMSO]

It would be good for your education to learn a little about the Hebrew language. There are NO CAPITAL letters in Hebrew. So making any statement based on what English translators decided to capitalize is quite ignorant.

You do understand that when translating, if you have decided that certain pronouns will be capitalized (God, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit), that that means one is tracking the flow, and when the pronoun is attached to those people, then the letter is capitalized. So, if a pronoun is not capitalized, then we should be able to assume, based on the ability of the translator, that it isn't one of the big four, right?

I may not know much about the Hebrew language, but I was a linguist, and understand the work of translation. (Have done it before.) Did a little transcription as well. It is very important to be able to follow the flow of what the author, or speaker is conveying, and then properly convey it in another language. They decided to capitalize all pronouns related to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a pronoun is not capitalized, if you trust the work of the translator, then it is clear it isn't one of the big four.

 

[Josh II]

It nearly happened in the 1st century.

"Nearly"?

If the texts are read as "normal language" (as stipulated in the op), then the predicted events have transpired, come and gone. If the texts are read as "normal language" (as stipulated in the op), then the op's use of "final day judgment" is an inappropriate addition to scripture because that phrase is nowhere found in the NT. I can explain this next statement if necessary and parse through the relevant texts in the Bible, but it seems clear the lasts days occurred in the first century, along with their ends, but the last day has not yet occurred.


So.....

I'd like to ask...

1. What do you mean by "final day of judgement"?
2. What do you mean when stating it "nearly happened in the first century"?
3. Where might we find scripture supporting a "nearly happened" interpretation specifically of the final day of judgment?
4. When saying, "The believers are picked up by Christ just before this," do you mean something more or something other than all are raised to face judgment on the last day? If so then please clarify.

Clarify these matters for me. Thx

 

[Josh II]

.........the most complete non-symbolic passage of the NT on the future (2 P 3) mentions neither of them, but satisfies all the questions.

Aside from the fact that is an argument from silence (just because they are not mentioned does not mean they do not exist), how does 2 Peter 3 "satisfy" the question of the rapture's timing?








(btw, for the record: I'm partial-pret, not pre-trib)
.

 

[Josh II]

Here are two reforms that are needed to get to effective eschatology...................

Are you aware that there is a huge segment of Christendom that already holds positions like the ones described and therefore have no need of such "reforms"?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You do understand that when translating, if you have decided that certain pronouns will be capitalized (God, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit), that that means one is tracking the flow, and when the pronoun is attached to those people, then the letter is capitalized. So, if a pronoun is not capitalized, then we should be able to assume, based on the ability of the translator, that it isn't one of the big four, right?

I may not know much about the Hebrew language, but I was a linguist, and understand the work of translation. (Have done it before.) Did a little transcription as well. It is very important to be able to follow the flow of what the author, or speaker is conveying, and then properly convey it in another language. They decided to capitalize all pronouns related to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a pronoun is not capitalized, if you trust the work of the translator, then it is clear it isn't one of the big four.

Any translator that will add capitals to a language that does not have them, is a fraud. That's a strong statement. But it is true. Even you assume that the scripture you quoted is accurately portraying the original meaning. What you quoted is NOT according to what Daniel originally wrote. Your entire assumption is wrong. Don't feel bad. 99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too.

 

[Josh II]

99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too.

Prove it.

That's a strong statement, but it is a valid request. In the absence of proof then let me encourage and exhort you to be more discerning when indicting 99.99% of English readers. I do hope by "English readers" that was not intended to mean English-reading Christians.

 

[EarlyActs]

"Nearly"?

If the texts are read as "normal language" (as stipulated in the op), then the predicted events have transpired, come and gone. If the texts are read as "normal language" (as stipulated in the op), then the op's use of "final day judgment" is an inappropriate addition to scripture because that phrase is nowhere found in the NT. I can explain this next statement if necessary and parse through the relevant texts in the Bible, but it seems clear the lasts days occurred in the first century, along with their ends, but the last day has not yet occurred.


So.....

I'd like to ask...

1. What do you mean by "final day of judgement"?
2. What do you mean when stating it "nearly happened in the first century"?
3. Where might we find scripture supporting a "nearly happened" interpretation specifically of the final day of judgment?
4. When saying, "The believers are picked up by Christ just before this," do you mean something more or something other than all are raised to face judgment on the last day? If so then please clarify.

Clarify these matters for me. Thx

The end of the world as described by 2 P 3 did not happen; there has been a delay; hence he explained a delay.

 

[EarlyActs]

Are you aware that there is a huge segment of Christendom that already holds positions like the ones described and therefore have no need of such "reforms"?

Yes

 

[TMSO]

Any translator that will add capitals to a language that does not have them, is a fraud. That's a strong statement. But it is true. Even you assume that the scripture you quoted is accurately portraying the original meaning. What you quoted is NOT according to what Daniel originally wrote. Your entire assumption is wrong. Don't feel bad. 99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too.

Perhaps you can answer this question. Are we to assume that God breaks/violates covenants if it is the Messiah who confirms the covenant (one would think with an oath), and then breaks/violates it half way through the time it was confirmed for?

Also, as I looked again, I noticed something. It says that the Messiah is cut off after the 62nd week, which brings to an end 69 weeks of the prophecy. That is fine, obviously. However, there is nothing in this verse that states that the 70th week is happening. So, the Messiah is cut off after the 62nd week, and Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. This obviously cannot be the 70th week, as there is almost a 40 year time period from Jesus dying, and Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed.

Then he confirms a covenant for a week. Why? What does verse 26 end with? War, desolation, etc. So peace with the many for a week. Then 3 1/2 days later (3 1/2 years), this person ends the sacrificial system occuring in the temple. What temple? It was destroyed in 70 AD. Where did they get a new temple to be able to offer sacrifices and such? And if you read Irenaeus and others from early church history, the AntiChrist enters the temple and declares himself to be God, beginning the Great Tribulation. (3 1/2 years before the end.)

A question for consideration. Is there any possibility that the covenant mentioned here could be the Abrahamic Accords?

 

[Josh II]

You do understand that when translating, if you have decided that certain pronouns will be capitalized (God, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit), that that means one is tracking the flow, and when the pronoun is attached to those people, then the letter is capitalized. So, if a pronoun is not capitalized, then we should be able to assume, based on the ability of the translator, that it isn't one of the big four, right?

I'm with @eclipseEventSigns here. The 22-letter Hebrew alphabet does not contain upper case letters (and our Greek manuscripts up until the 6th century are all uncial = all-caps). That translators capitalize names and proper nouns is a matter of translation and not one that should automatically be accepted. Even where capitalized nouns are appropriate they can be misleading or confusing. Take, for example, the NASB's capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus. Is a capitalized "He," a reference to the Father or the Son? Othe translations do not capitalize Jesus' pronouns so does that mean they did not think Jesus divine? No!

....we should be able to assume........

How about we not assume, especially in forum discourse where the members are often very intelligent, well-educated, experienced in Bible translation, exegesis, hermeneutics, and logical reasoning?

I may not know much about the Hebrew language, but I was a linguist, and understand the work of translation. (Have done it before.) Did a little transcription as well. It is very important to be able to follow the flow of what the author, or speaker is conveying, and then properly convey it in another language. They decided to capitalize all pronouns related to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If a pronoun is not capitalized, if you trust the work of the translator, then it is clear it isn't one of the big four.

With all due respect, if you were a linguist and familiar with translating languages then I recommend applying that education, experience, and skill to Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek, and all the more so if you are KJVO and exponentially so since you're a pre-trib dispensational premillennialists.

Are you aware there is a brand-new Bible translation done entirely by Dispensationalists? Do you think they translated the Bible identically as the translations done by predominantly Reformed translators over the last few decades?

 

[EarlyActs]

Aside from the fact that is an argument from silence (just because they are not mentioned does not mean they do not exist), how does 2 Peter 3 "satisfy" the question of the rapture's timing?








(btw, for the record: I'm partial-pret, not pre-trib)
.

uhhh, the believers are with Christ on the NHNE. We have to have something that is able to get them from the incineration of earth to there, including those alive at the end of time. Compare Christ and 3 disciples up talking with Moses and Elijah?

 

[Josh II]

Yes

How do you reconcile the knowledge a large swath of Christendom already holds to the position(s) asserted in the op and the claim 99.99% of English readers are wrong?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Here are two reforms that are needed to get to effective eschatology.

1, we need to see from the NT letters in normal language (not Judaic symbolism in the Rev), that the final day of judgement is quickly over. It nearly happened in the 1st century. The believers are picked up by Christ just before this, and the next thing they know is the comfort of his arms, along with all who preceded them in the NHNE.

2, the material before Mt 24:29 (matching that of Mk 13 and Luke 13, 15, 17, 19, 21) is a rather detailed account of the conclusion of Dan 9 in 1st century Judea, on time and as expected. See some of the same language in Mt 10 as in 24. It was the full wrath of God upon Israel. "He" of 9:27a is Christ, confirming the new covenant and ending the Judaic tradition at the temple. The person who desolates the place is mentioned in 27b.

This should eliminate all the clatter about the rapture and the mill as way below the line of necessary detail. For ex., the most complete non-symbolic passage of the NT on the future (2 P 3) mentions neither of them, but satisfies all the questions.

What's REALLY NEEDED in the realization that "Eschatology" is nothing more than a "Religious buzz word" meaning "Rank Speculation".

Jesus seems to indicate that the REAL CHURCH would be aware in the Holy Spirit when the "Season" drew close. that there would be a cry - "Even so COME Lord Jesus!!!"

 

[Josh II]

uhhh, the believers are with Christ on the NHNE. We have to have something that is able to get them from the incineration of earth to there, including those alive at the end of time.

I would like you to read your own posts and think how they read to other before you click "Post reply," because that first sentence does not contain any qualifiers. Do you mean "believers after the y die" are with Jesus on the NHNE (new heavens and new earth, for those not familiar with the anacronym), or "believers right now," or "believers before the final day of judgment," or "believers after the final day of judgment, or any number of other ways we might read that phrase given comments you've already posted. Remember: we can't read your mind. We do not know what was intended; we know only what is posted.

Where did you get the premise time ends?

Compare Christ and 3 disciples up talking with Moses and Elijah?

Why? That has nothing to do with the NHNE (or at least you have yet to prove the relevance and application).

 

[TMSO]

The end of the world as described by 2 P 3 did not happen; there has been a delay; hence he explained a delay.

Could you answer just a few questions. Understand, I do not claim to have an answer, but a second set of eyes would be nice.

1. The one who confirms/makes (depends on translation) the covenant, doesn't he also violate/break it after 3 1/2 years, hence the break?
2. Verse 26. "26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the [a]Messiah will be cut off and have [b]nothing..." What does it mean when it says that the Messiah will have nothing? (I don't know, I haven't really thought about it.)
3. Continuing on with the, after sixty-two weeks "and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." This is, if it is 70 AD, about 40 years after the Messiah is cut off. Is this not an explicit break between the 69th and 70th weeks? (I say that even though Daniel never explicitly connected the 70 weeks together. There are 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and a week. He never combines the 7 and 62 as 69.)
4. In verse 27 it says that sacrifices will be stopped after a half a week. Where are these sacrifices being offered if the temple no longer exists? It was destroyed in 70AD, prior to the 70th week.

[I am not answering the questions because, basically, I am not sure. I have my ideas, but that is all it is. To share those ideas 1. It isn't the Messiah who confirms the covenant and breaks it. It is someone who is the tool of God's divine punishment on Israel that doesn't end until the end of the 70 weeks. 2. I really don't know. However, since He was rejected as Messiah/King... He has no kingdom (on earth.) 3. I'm pretty sure you already know I believe that the 70th week still hasn't happened. 4. I like the way it is put in pseudo ephraim. The Antichrist will have Israel rebuild the temple at the beginning of the week, and then after 3 1/2 years, he will enter the temple and declare himself God and put an end to all other religions.] Again, these are my opinions/beliefs. Some are only thoughts, hence the second set of eyes.