Preterism misrepresents Scripture

Hammster · Jul 30, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
You don't address my arguments. You just relay what you have been taught. My previous posts rebut your arguments.

I present Scripture to support Scripture, which trumps your so-called authorities. We should be led by the Holy Spirit not man. I reject your selective and false interpretation.

Here’s an argument you’ve made.

“There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.”

Where’s the scripture? Where’s any evidence, for that matter? I’ve tried getting a discussion going about your OP, and you just keep disappearing.

claninja · Jul 30, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
You don't address my arguments. You just relay what you have been taught. My previous posts rebut your arguments.

I present Scripture to support Scripture, which trumps your so-called authorities. We should be led by the Holy Spirit not man. I reject your selective and false interpretation.

Which argument did i not address?

claninja · Jul 30, 2023

Spiritual Jew said:
Primarily does not mean exclusively. It seems like you are dodging my point here. Do you or do you not believe that he was at least partly addressing Gentile believers regardless of whether or not he was primarily addressing Jewish believers?

Right, it means primarily. Peters intent was to the “diaspora”, or Jews amongst the Greeks. i don’t think he was addressing a gentile audience, in the same way Paul wrote to the Ephesians and wasn’t addressing a Corinthian audience.

Spiritual Jew said:
There were Gentile Christians living in Jerusalem when this happened:

Acts 8:1 On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

It wasn't just Jewish Christians who were exiled at that time. Gentile Christians were as well. It wasn't a Jewish exile, it was a Christian exile. Since it was a Christian exile and not just a Jewish exile, then it makes sense that Gentile Christians were among those exiled to "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" as well as Jewish Christians.

I’m not following you here. This passage doesn’t say there were GENTILE Christians in the church at Jerusalem.

Spiritual Jew said:
It is literal when it talks about the new heavens and new earth.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Tell me what this means in a non-literal way. If this is not talking about a literal new heavens and new earth then what are "the former" that "shall not be remembered, not come into mind"?

Also, what prophecy was Peter quoting when he said the day of the Lord would come like a thief resulting in the burning up of the heavens, the earth and the elements? That isn't found in Isaiah 65.

I agree with Bishop Lowe:

“For, as Bishop Lowth observes, the Hebrew writers, “to express happiness, prosperity, the instauration and advancement of states, kingdoms, and potentates, make use of images taken from the most striking parts of nature; from the heavenly bodies, from the sun, moon, and stars, which they describe as shining with increased splendour, and never setting; the moon becomes like the meridian sun, and the sun’s light is augmented seven-fold: see Isaiah 30:26. New heavens and a new earth are created, and a brighter age commences. On the contrary, the overthrow and destruction of kingdoms are represented by opposite images; the stars are obscured, the moon withdraws her light, and the sun shines no more; the earth quakes, and the heavens tremble; and all things seem tending to their original chaos.”

I don’t believe Peter was teaching beyond how the OT prophets taught.

Does this mean, since you take Isaiah 65 as literal, that you believe sinners and infants will be there also?

Spiritual Jew said:
No evidence? You have to be kidding me. It's sad that you don't consider scripture itself to be evidence.

There is No “physical” evidence of a global flood during Noah’s time. There is, however, “physical” evidence of a massive regional deluge during Noah’s time.

As the Bible often employs hyperbolic language, I believe the flood story refers to the massive regional deluge which we have evidence for, and not a global flood, for which we don’t have physical evidence for.

sovereigngrace · Jul 30, 2023

Hammster said:
Here’s an argument you’ve made.

“There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.”

Where’s the scripture? Where’s any evidence, for that matter? I’ve tried getting a discussion going about your OP, and you just keep disappearing.

Every post you make and every post Preterists make is evidence. Facts are stubborn things.

Hammster · Jul 30, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
Every post you make and every post Preterists make is evidence. Facts are stubborn things.

Where’s your scripture?

Hammster · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
I present Scripture to support Scripture,

Hammster said:
Where’s the scripture? Where’s any evidence, for that matter? I’ve tried getting a discussion going about your OP, and you just keep disappearing.

sovereigngrace said:
Every post you make and every post Preterists make is evidence. Facts are stubborn things.

Hammster said:
Where’s your scripture?

Still waiting.

sovereigngrace · Jul 31, 2023

Hammster said:
Where’s your scripture?

I am highlighting your lack of Scripture and your fixation with Titus and AD70.

Ed Parenteau · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. What is more: man is still sinning, dying, decaying, crying, hating, and destroying, in pain, in sorrow, experiencing the awful consequences of the curse. That has not been lifted. The reality is: the whole of creation human, animal and the physical realm are groaning and travailing because of the bondage of corruption. This whole theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. The reality around us and the biblical facts totally exposes Preterist error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

In other words, if God's word was actually true, and the time statements were actually true, then Preterism would also be true. At the same time Peter said the above he also said Christ's promise would not be delayed. Only a promise that has a time reference can be delayed. So therefore, Peter himself contradicts your assertion. And when Peter is inspired to say the "end of all things is near" your saying it really means "not near" Talk about contraditions.

Hammster · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
I am highlighting your lack of Scripture and your fixation with Titus and AD70.

Let’s do this. I’ll post a thread on 1 Corinthians 15, and my understanding. Let’s see how many pages we will get to before Matthew 24 is brought up, and I’m forced defend the preterist view of the Olivet discourse. Deal??

sovereigngrace · Jul 31, 2023

Ed Parenteau said:
In other words, if God's word was actually true, and the time statements were actually true, then Preterism would also be true. At the same time Peter said the above he also said Christ's promise would not be delayed. Only a promise that has a time reference can be delayed. So therefore, Peter himself contradicts your assertion. And when Peter is inspired to say the "end of all things is near" your saying it really means "not near" Talk about contraditions.

Not so. What you propose conflicts with all the biblical writers. I refer you back.

Hammster · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
Not so. What you propose conflicts with all the biblical writers. I refer you back.

Scripture?

sovereigngrace · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
Not so. What you propose conflicts with all the biblical writers. I refer you back.

The "end of all things" has not arrived! Hello! Where Preterists get mixed up is that they see the coming of Titus in AD70 as the apex of history and the climactic coming of Christ. The rest of us see Christ's one final literal physical coming of Christ in the future as the end of this age, the end of time, the end of corruption,

To attribute the coming of Titus in AD 70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the “end of all things” is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”

Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

The coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.

Peter informs us that “the end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). The context here relates to judgment day when every human will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves to Christ. Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of all things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’

Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.

In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.

Spiritual Jew · Jul 31, 2023

myst33 said:
If we both understand that saying "we" must include "us", then we may both see that Paul taught and the first church believed that at least some of them will be alive in the time of the coming.

No, we both don't see that. Only you do.

myst33 said:
Future for him does not have to mean future for us.

Are you purposely avodiing addressing my point? Does Revelation indicate that everything in the book was soon to happen or not? It does not, right? It says in Revelation 1:19 that John was to write about things that happened in the past, things happening at the time, and things that would happen after that. Why is it that you don't want to address this?

myst33 said:
If the Bible prophecised they will witness that, then its not so unlikely that they lived to 70. They just had to survive fights and wars, being soldiers.

I said 70 as the low end of the ages that the ones Jesus was speaking to likely would have been in AD 70 if they were still alive. Most of them probably would've been 80 or more by AD 70.

myst33 said:
The context is self-explanatory. The "soon" means soon regarding to the world events in the book. Those events naturally do not happen in days or months, so being it 5 years, 10 years, 15 years is still working, in this context. If you argue that "soon" cannot last for example a decade, the favorite verse of futurists can be used here, too:

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2Pt 3:9

I was referring to the word "tachy" that is translated as "quickly" in particular and not to every word that is translated as "near" or "soon". That particular word is always used in the sense of something happening immediately or very quickly. It seems that you are denying that, but all you need to do is look at how it is used elsewhere.
https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2 Pet 3.9

myst33 said:
I think that your argument that "soon", regarding world events, cannot take for example a decade, is not a strong one. Usage in other verses in different contexts is not a law.

This is an interesting thing for a preterist like yourself to say. Your whole doctrine is based on assumptions you make about how words like "soon" and "near" are used, yet here you are saying there is no law about how they have to be used in any given verse. Very interesting indeed.

myst33 said:
If people (in those times) were using your argument - that soon cannot take some years

That isn't my argument about the word "soon", that was my argument about the word translated as "quickly" in Revelation 22. You just completely missed my point.

myst33 said:
- then it would make sense for Peter to exaggerate ("even thousand years..."). But again, this one verse cannot be used as some blank check for like 30 prophecies that the coming will happen in their lifes. They were genuinely expecting and teaching that, at least it seems so from the New Testament.

Speaking of exaggerating...you are exaggerating how many prophecies that supposedly say that the coming would happen in their lifetimes. There weren't 30. There were none.

myst33 said:
Its the nature of people that we can get impatient easily. It was something Jesus was warning His disciples about quite frequently, in parables.

And James adds:
"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

This does not change my point. According to Peter in 2 Peter 3:8-9, the Lord's coming would be near even if it was still a thousand years or more away. He spoke from the Lord's perspective, not man's. And I believe James was doing the same.

Spiritual Jew · Jul 31, 2023

myst33 said:
Regarding the text from James:

"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

The word "near" in the sentence "for the coming of the Lord is near":

HELPS Word-studies
1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence...

Guess what? It didn't happen in 70 AD. Jesus did not come then in any way, shape or form. So, either James was a liar or he was speaking from the same perspective as Peter did in 2 Peter 3:8-9, which was from the Lord's perspective.

Spiritual Jew · Jul 31, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
The "end of all things" has not arrived! Hello! Where Preterists get mixed up is that they see the coming of Titus in AD70 as the apex of history and the climactic coming of Christ. The rest of us see Christ's one final literal physical coming of Christ in the future as the end of this age, the end of time, the end of corruption,

To attribute the coming of Titus in AD 70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the “end of all things” is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”

Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

The coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.

Peter informs us that “the end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). The context here relates to judgment day when every human will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves to Christ. Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of all things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’

Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.

In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.

Exactly. Amen. Also, preterists do not take into account what Peter said elsewhere about the end of all things in 2nd Peter 3. There, in verses 8 and 9, he made the point that no one can say that the Lord is being slow to keep the promise of His coming because to Him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. So, it's obvious to me that Peter thought in terms of how long things would be from the Lord's perspective. That would be no different when it comes to 1 Peter 4:7.

Spiritual Jew · Jul 31, 2023

Ed Parenteau said:
In other words, if God's word was actually true, and the time statements were actually true, then Preterism would also be true. At the same time Peter said the above he also said Christ's promise would not be delayed. Only a promise that has a time reference can be delayed. So therefore, Peter himself contradicts your assertion. And when Peter is inspired to say the "end of all things is near" your saying it really means "not near" Talk about contraditions.

Did you even read the post you were replying to? He indicated in his post that, in his view, Peter was speaking from God's perspectivei just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. So, he's not denying what Peter said and not contradicting anything. He simply has a different interpretation of it than you do.

Spiritual Jew · Jul 31, 2023

claninja said:
Right, it means primarily. Peters intent was to the “diaspora”, or Jews amongst the Greeks. i don’t think he was addressing a gentile audience, in the same way Paul wrote to the Ephesians and wasn’t addressing a Corinthian audience.

I disagree as I've already made clear. So, is it your view that Gentile believers are not part of the "holy nation" and "holy priesthood" that Peter referred to?

claninja said:
I’m not following you here. This passage doesn’t say there were GENTILE Christians in the church at Jerusalem.

I guess not specifically, but the point I was meaning to make is that it was the church that was scattered and not Jews specifically. Them being scattered was because they were Christians and not because they were Jews. Is there any reason to think there were no Gentile Christians in Jerusalem? Cornelius and his family were Gentiles living in Israel. But, there were no Gentile Christians in Jerusalem? I doubt that.

claninja said:
I agree with Bishop Lowe:

“For, as Bishop Lowth observes, the Hebrew writers, “to express happiness, prosperity, the instauration and advancement of states, kingdoms, and potentates, make use of images taken from the most striking parts of nature; from the heavenly bodies, from the sun, moon, and stars, which they describe as shining with increased splendour, and never setting; the moon becomes like the meridian sun, and the sun’s light is augmented seven-fold: see Isaiah 30:26. New heavens and a new earth are created, and a brighter age commences. On the contrary, the overthrow and destruction of kingdoms are represented by opposite images; the stars are obscured, the moon withdraws her light, and the sun shines no more; the earth quakes, and the heavens tremble; and all things seem tending to their original chaos.”

I don’t believe Peter was teaching beyond how the OT prophets taught.

Never heard of him. I don't see where he answered my first question, so would you like to give it a shot?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Please tell me what this means in a non-literal way. If this is not talking about a literal new heavens and new earth then what are "the former" that "shall not be remembered, not come into mind"? If you think this Bishop Lowe guy answered the question, then show me where exactly. Please put it in your own words if you can because his words don't make any sense to me.

As for Peter, there is no indication that he was speaking in a symbolic sense in 2 Peter 3. None whatsoever. He was not comparing a symbolic event to a literal event in 2 Peter 3:6-7. That would be ludicrous.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Can you see here that Peter compared a future fiery event involving the heavens and the earth to the past flood event where "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"? Do you expect me to believe that Peter was comparing a symbolic future fiery event to that ancient event involving flood waters that destroyed the world? I can't take that seriously. When Peter said "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire" he was indicating that he was comparing events that were the same. In what way? In that they were both global and both physical events. If you disagree, then please tell me exactly how you interpret this passage.

claninja said:
Does this mean, since you take Isaiah 65 as literal, that you believe sinners and infants will be there also?

No, it does not mean that. You need to read what I actually say and not read things into what I say. I said I take Isaiah 65:17 literally. Did you notice I only quoted that verse and not any others? Does every verse in OT prophecy have to be taken figuratively? Of course not. There is a mix of literal and symbolic text.

claninja said:
There is No “physical” evidence of a global flood during Noah’s time. There is, however, “physical” evidence of a massive regional deluge during Noah’s time.

So, the scriptural evidence means nothing to you. That says it all.

claninja said:
As the Bible often employs hyperbolic language,

But there is no indication of hyperbolic language being used in Genesis 6. None whatsoever. And none here, either:

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

claninja said:
I believe the flood story refers to the massive regional deluge which we have evidence for, and not a global flood, for which we don’t have physical evidence for.

Who are the "we" you are referring to here?

Do those who you think are the ultimate authority on what type of evidence there is for the flood consider things like this:

Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence

grafted branch · Jul 31, 2023

Spiritual Jew said:
Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Please tell me what this means in a non-literal way. If this is not talking about a literal new heavens and new earth then what are "the former" that "shall not be remembered, not come into mind"? If you think this Bishop Lowe guy answered the question, then show me where exactly. Please put it in your own words if you can because his words don't make any sense to me.

I’ll take a shot at this question.
First off Luke 21:33 says Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Which means Isaiah 65:17 can’t be referring to anything written in the Bible.

If we are currently in NHNE then the former heaven and earth (literal or not) can’t be remembered and there’s no possible way to figure out what the former heaven and earth was because it won’t come to mind.

If we aren’t in NHNE yet, then nothing that is currently written in the Bible can be referring to the current heaven and earth because the words of the Bible will be in the NHNE according to Luke 21:33 and according to Isaiah 65:17 the former shall not be remembered.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Will this literal statement be remembered in NHNE?

sovereigngrace · Aug 1, 2023

grafted branch said:
I’ll take a shot at this question.
First off Luke 21:33 says Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Which means Isaiah 65:17 can’t be referring to anything written in the Bible.

If we are currently in NHNE then the former heaven and earth (literal or not) can’t be remembered and there’s no possible way to figure out what the former heaven and earth was because it won’t come to mind.

If we aren’t in NHNE yet, then nothing that is currently written in the Bible can be referring to the current heaven and earth because the words of the Bible will be in the NHNE according to Luke 21:33 and according to Isaiah 65:17 the former shall not be remembered.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Will this literal statement be remembered in NHNE?

I hope someone else here understands this. I do not know what you are meaning here.

trophy33 · Aug 1, 2023

Spiritual Jew said:
Guess what? It didn't happen in 70 AD. Jesus did not come then in any way, shape or form. So, either James was a liar or he was speaking from the same perspective as Peter did in 2 Peter 3:8-9, which was from the Lord's perspective.

This is what I mean by using the verse from Peter as a blank check for other verses elsewhere. And Peter is not saying that it will take thousands of years, anyway.

The New Testament has dozens of clear and explicit verses predicting the return of Jesus in their lifetime.

Properly defined possibilities are:
1. They truly believed that it will happen, but it did not happen
2. They did not truly believed so (it just seems they did) and it did not happen
3. They truly believed that it will happen and it happened (the simplest explanation IMO)
4. They lied and it did not happen
5. They lied (they had no such prophecy, just pretended) but it did happen

Maybe some others.

Preterism misrepresents Scripture

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads