- Oct 12, 2020
- 7,394
- 2,496
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Come on. The thousand years was absolutely not history at the time John was writing. That is utter nonsense. The thousand years clearly refers to a time period during which Christ reigns. He clearly began to reign after His resurrection at which point He said this:The literal thousand years was history at the time John was writing. As you remember, John was told to "write the things which thou HAST seen", (which would have included the ending of the millennium in AD 33) as well as the things that ARE presently taking place as John was writing, and the things which were ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE after those things.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
That passage isn't referring to all prophecy. You're taking it out of context.You may think I am being "far too literal" as to when I understand an "AT HAND" prophecy to be fulfilled, but not by God's own definition of how HE defines an "at hand" prophecy in Ezekiel 12:21-28. He was very precise in explaining how "at hand" prophecies were to be interpreted. I'm just trying to follow His dictionary.
Nonsense. Christ has not yet returned, the resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred, the judgment has not yet taken places and the new heavens and new earth have not yet been ushered in. Those things prove that your understanding of "at hand" is false.No, not at all. "AT HAND" means the prophecy will not only be spoken by God, but in the same time frame, it will also be "performed in your days", to the ones receiving that prophecy originally. "AT HAND" prophecies are NOT "prolonged" into "times that are far off". For you to say this means "continually approaching" is to evade God's time limits that He gives you.
The words "about to" there are translated as "shall" in the KJV and are translated from the Greek word mellō (Strong's G3195). That word does not have to refer to something that was about to or was soon to occur. It is used in this verse:If Christ said in Luke 21:36 that He included His second coming return among "...ALL these things that are about to come to pass", why would you want to contradict that?
Matthew 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was (Greek: mellō) to come.
I believe this prophecy from Malachi 4:5-6 was written about 400 year prior to Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come. Obviously, he was to come for a good amount of time before he actually arrived.
You are not recognizing that Isaiah was writing to people who did not yet have any concept of eternity like we do now, so he spoke of eternity in a way that they could understand such as the reference to a 100 year old child, which is clearly figurative language.And the stipulated conditions in the New Heavens and New Earth are not quite the sinless utopia you envision, since Isaiah 65:17-25 includes some very particular things that could not possibly be present in the afterlife for believers. Namely, the birth of children, the presence of sinners, death still occurring for them, praying to God, which would not be necessary if we were face to face with Him, etc....
Why would you interpret Isaiah 65:17-25 in such a way that contradicts Revelation 21:1-4 which clearly says that there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain in the new heavens and new earth? The New Testament gives light and clarification to the Old Testament, not the other way around.
Upvote
0