Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?

[A New World]

I'm not sure the CF rules will allow the following post. I was reading a thread in the orthodox area and realized I couldn't fully respond. I told the poster that I would post a response here.

The following post should be relevant to the title of this thread: "Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?"

The 3 stages of a harvest are firstfruits, main harvest, and gleaning, which can typify 3 bodily resurrections: 1. the past, firstfruits bodily resurrection of Jesus only (1 Corinthians 15:20,23); 2. the future bodily resurrection of the entire church at his 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:23,52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), which will occur immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, and right before the millennium (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6); and then 3. the bodily resurrection at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), which will occur sometime after the millennium and the subsequent Gog/Magog rebellion (Revelation 20:7-15, Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

So you see Jesus' resurrection as firstfruits but the rest of the firstfruits immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation just before the final harvest at the great white throne judgment?

That seems to be contrary to the harvest illustration, the type/ante-type. Jesus and the early church were depicted as firstfruits (Rom. 8;23; James 1:18). Since the firstfruits were being gathered in the first century it seems the full harvest should follow sooner rather than thousands of years later to maintain consistency.

Note that whereas the church as a whole is indeed a figurative temple building (Ephesians 2:21), it isn't the only temple of God. For it coexisted with the literal, 2nd temple building which was in Jerusalem in the 1st century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), just as the church coexisted, and still coexists today, with the literal temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and with the temple of Jesus' individual human body (John 2:21), and with the temple of every Christian's individual human body (1 Corinthians 6:19). And if the church-as-a-whole temple can currently coexist with all these other temples of God, it will be able to coexist with the future, 3rd-earthly-literal temple building which Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 show will exist in Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This 3rd temple building will be accepted by God as a valid temple, just as the 2nd temple building was accepted by God as a valid temple, even at the time of Jesus' 1st coming (Matthew 23:21), and even at the time of the early church (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17).

Remember Paul, writing to the church, wrote, "For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” (II Corinthians 6:16 NKJV)

By quoting Ezekiel, he informed the church that they were fulfilling the prophecy, "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Ezekiel 37:26, 27 NKJV)

So I agree the new temple coexisted with second temple which was still standing. But, since the old temple represented the age that would soon pass away, the new temple, made of living stones with Jesus the Chief Cornerstone, represented the final temple in which God promised to dwell forever.

For the ultra-Orthodox Jews will build the 3rd temple, and they will offer animal sacrifices in front of it, under the auspices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which remains holy before God (Romans 7:12). That's why God still keeps an ark of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in his temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and why it was possible for the apostle Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's Old Covenant Mosaic law practices without him committing sin (Acts 21:20-26; 1 Corinthians 9:20). This isn't to say that the Jesus-denying motives of the ultra-Orthodox Jews will be holy before God, but that the Old-Covenant-Mosaic-law 3rd temple in itself and its animal sacrifices in themselves will be holy before God, because the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself remains holy before God (Romans 7:12), even though its letter is no longer meant to be practiced by people (Romans 7:6), because the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus and his once-for-all-time sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28).

I see Jesus and the people of God as the third and final temple. And, the Law, the first covenant (Heb. 8), as passing away at the end of the Mosaic age in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13). Therefore, "Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's Old Covenant Mosaic law practices without him committing sin" was due to the fact that the Law had not yet passed away.

Just as the heaven and earth which "were of old" (2 Peter 3:5-6) were the literal 1st "heaven" (the sky/atmosphere, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20) and the literal "earth" (the dry land) which God created in Genesis 1:7-10, and which "perished" in Noah's flood (2 Peter 3:5-6, Genesis 6:13-21), so the heaven and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which will perish in the future by fire instead of flood (2 Peter 3:7-12), are the earth's present atmosphere and surface. And so the new heaven and earth, which the church is still waiting for (2 Peter 3:13) -- because the new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1) won't be made until after the never-fulfilled events of Revelation chapters 6 to 20 -- will be a new atmosphere and surface for the earth.

I believe we must take both epistles of Peter into consideration. In his first epistle he made the following time statement: "But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers." (I Peter 4:7 NKJV)

The last days scoffers rejected his inspired words: "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (II Peter 3:3, 4 NKJV)

Though God's promised judgment had been delayed for centuries, that generation was told: "“For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry." (Hebrews 10:37 NKJV)

That is, the "old" heaven and earth perished at the time of Noah's flood (2 Peter 3:5-6), which was over 1,000 years before the Old Covenant Mosaic law was established in Exodus. The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments was abolished the moment that Jesus died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was the same moment that he brought the New Covenant into effect (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a). Matthew 5:18 refers to the literal heaven and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which are going to be literally burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12).

In Noah's flood the literal heavens and earth were not destroyed, but the wicked were judged. Noah and his family were spared from the wrath of God. This pattern would be repeated when God judged the harlot Israel soon after Peter wrote.

For reasons stated above, I don't see the old Law abolished at the cross. Since God's wrath against Old Covenant Israel wouldn't arrive until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the Law they were being judged by must have been in effect at least until then.

Revelation 21:2,9,10 means that the physical structure of the literal city of New Jerusalem is a picture of the church. Something can be literal and at the same time symbolically picture something else, like how in Matthew 21:19 the fig tree was literal and at the same time its being without fruit symbolically pictured unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel being without fruit (Matthew 21:43).

In my opinion the new heavens and earth, the New Jerusalem, and the bride of Christ are synonymous in Rev 21. John saw the passing away of the Old Covenant and the full arrival of the New.

Just as New Jerusalem's literal wall foundations have the names of the 12 apostles on them (Revelation 21:14), so the church's foundation is the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). And just as New Jerusalem's literal pearly gates have the names of Israel's 12 tribes on them (Revelation 21:12,21), so the church consists of Israel's 12 tribes. For all genetic Jews in the church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all genetic Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23).

I believe John's use of both groups, the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles, indicates they all make up the foundation of the church, the body of Christ, made up of Jew and Gentile.

New Jerusalem is a literal city 1,500 miles cubed (Revelation 21:16), with literal pearly gates and literal streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). It's God the Father's house in the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2b,4, Revelation 2:7b, Revelation 22:2,14), in which house Jesus left to prepare a place for the church (John 14:2). All those in the church, whether Jews or Gentiles, have figuratively come to New Jerusalem by coming under the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24, Galatians 4:24-26), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and which only the church comes under by believing in Jesus' New Covenant death on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), the very heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

I agree with all you've written with one exception. I believe the New Jerusalem was not meant as a literal city at all. It was, as you implied, a term that figuratively described the church, the bride of Christ.

The church looks for Jesus' return from heaven (Philippians 3:20), and the setting up of his physical kingdom on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). New Jerusalem won't descend from the 3rd heaven to the earth until after a new earth (a new surface of the earth) has been created (Revelation 21:1-4), sometime after the 1,000 years and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15). The church will physically live and reign in New Jerusalem with God the Father and Jesus on the new earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5). The Father and Jesus themselves will be the only temple in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22).

I believe the New Jerusalem descending from heaven took place once the Old Covenant age ended. The language indicated the full arrival of the New Covenant kingdom after the old was completely removed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm not sure the CF rules will allow the following post. I was reading a thread in the orthodox area and realized I couldn't fully respond. I told the poster that I would post a response here.

The following post should be relevant to the title of this thread: "Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?"........................

I believe the New Jerusalem descending from heaven took place once the Old Covenant age ended.
The language indicated the full arrival of the New Covenant kingdom after the old was completely removed.

Excellent post and thanks for contributing that.

Brings to mine this passage in Luke 5 concerning the "OLD" and "NEW":


Luke 5:
37 "And no one is casting young/neon <3501> wine into OLD vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young, of the vessels
and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing .
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast
and both are preserved together.
39 and no one drinking OLD immediately is willing Young,
for he is saying, 'for the the Old kind/gracious is'".

Hebrews 8:13
in the to be saying, 'NEW/kainhn <2537>', He hath made OLD the first. The yet being aged and being obsolete nigh of disappearance/a-fanismou <854>
[Luke 5:37-39/Reve 19:3]


.

 

[JesusMartyr]

I'm not sure the CF rules will allow the following post. I was reading a thread in the orthodox area and realized I couldn't fully respond. I told the poster that I would post a response here.

The following post should be relevant to the title of this thread: "Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?"



So you see Jesus' resurrection as firstfruits but the rest of the firstfruits immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation just before the final harvest at the great white throne judgment?

That seems to be contrary to the harvest illustration, the type/ante-type. Jesus and the early church were depicted as firstfruits (Rom. 8;23; James 1:18). Since the firstfruits were being gathered in the first century it seems the full harvest should follow sooner rather than thousands of years later to maintain consistency.



Remember Paul, writing to the church, wrote, "For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” (II Corinthians 6:16 NKJV)

By quoting Ezekiel, he informed the church that they were fulfilling the prophecy, "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Ezekiel 37:26, 27 NKJV)

So I agree the new temple coexisted with second temple which was still standing. But, since the old temple represented the age that would soon pass away, the new temple, made of living stones with Jesus the Chief Cornerstone, represented the final temple in which God promised to dwell forever.



I see Jesus and the people of God as the third and final temple. And, the Law, the first covenant (Heb. 8), as passing away at the end of the Mosaic age in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13). Therefore, "Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's Old Covenant Mosaic law practices without him committing sin" was due to the fact that the Law had not yet passed away.



I believe we must take both epistles of Peter into consideration. In his first epistle he made the following time statement: "But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers." (I Peter 4:7 NKJV)

The last days scoffers rejected his inspired words: "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (II Peter 3:3, 4 NKJV)

Though God's promised judgment had been delayed for centuries, that generation was told: "“For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry." (Hebrews 10:37 NKJV)



In Noah's flood the literal heavens and earth were not destroyed, but the wicked were judged. Noah and his family were spared from the wrath of God. This pattern would be repeated when God judged the harlot Israel soon after Peter wrote.

For reasons stated above, I don't see the old Law abolished at the cross. Since God's wrath against Old Covenant Israel wouldn't arrive until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the Law they were being judged by must have been in effect at least until then.



In my opinion the new heavens and earth, the New Jerusalem, and the bride of Christ are synonymous in Rev 21. John saw the passing away of the Old Covenant and the full arrival of the New.



I believe John's use of both groups, the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles, indicates they all make up the foundation of the church, the body of Christ, made up of Jew and Gentile.



I agree with all you've written with one exception. I believe the New Jerusalem was not meant as a literal city at all. It was, as you implied, a term that figuratively described the church, the bride of Christ.



I believe the New Jerusalem descending from heaven took place once the Old Covenant age ended. The language indicated the full arrival of the New Covenant kingdom after the old was completely removed.

Excellent understanding! I am sure glad I stumbled across this part of the forum. This is pure wisdom and understanding of the Word of God as He's shown me when He called me out of the Judo-Christian dispensationalism of modern theology. Thank you for your post

 

[A New World]

Excellent understanding! I am sure glad I stumbled across this part of the forum. This is pure wisdom and understanding of the Word of God as He's shown me when He called me out of the Judo-Christian dispensationalism of modern theology. Thank you for your post

Thanks, I really appreciate brothers like you also.

I've been on this forum less than two weeks. As I was exploring the site prior to joining I was excited to see the unorthodox section. At least those who consider themselves orthodox have the opportunity to join us and maybe think outside the box if they wish.

Several years ago I tried to interact with so-called orthodox on a few other forums. They soon became defensive and then abusive. I was denied access to some and encouraged to be silent on others. It's truly sad that many refuse to think critically of what they've been taught. We must continually challenge everything if we have any hope of drawing closer to the truth.

I'm thankful to those who maintain this forum for providing the opportunity for those of us who are pursuing truth to voice our opinions.

 

[parousia70]

Thanks, I really appreciate brothers like you also.

I've been on this forum less than two weeks. As I was exploring the site prior to joining I was excited to see the unorthodox section. At least those who consider themselves orthodox have the opportunity to join us and maybe think outside the box if they wish.

I live for thinking outside the box!

Several years ago I tried to interact with so-called orthodox on a few other forums. They soon became defensive and then abusive. I was denied access to some and encouraged to be silent on others. It's truly sad that many refuse to think critically of what they've been taught. We must continually challenge everything if we have any hope of drawing closer to the truth.

Iron Sharpens Iron after all!

I'm thankful to those who maintain this forum for providing the opportunity for those of us who are pursuing truth to voice our opinions.

CF has come a looooong way!... I've been posting here for 14 years and it seems the past couple of years CF has really upped it game as far as recognizing the importance of what you point out.

Glad u r here!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by A New World

I'm not sure the CF rules will allow the following post. I was reading a thread in the orthodox area and realized I couldn't fully respond. I told the poster that I would post a response here.

I agree with all you've written with one exception. I believe the New Jerusalem was not meant as a literal city at all. It was, as you implied, a term that figuratively described the church, the bride of Christ.

I believe the New Jerusalem descending from heaven took place once the Old Covenant age ended. The language indicated the full arrival of the New Covenant kingdom after the old was completely removed.
​

Excellent understanding! I am sure glad I stumbled across this part of the forum.

This is pure wisdom and understanding of the Word of God as He's shown me when He called me out of the Judo-Christian dispensationalism of modern theology. Thank you for your post

We are also quite happy that you stumbled onto this board


.

 

[A New World]

I know that the temple was destroyed, ca. 70 AD, but when did all these things happen?

1. The Son of Man coming like lightning comes out of the east, and shining even unto the west.
2. Tribulation which precedes
3. the sun not giving its light.
4. The stars falling from heaven.
5. The powers of the heavens shaken.
6. The sign of the Son of man in heaven:
7. All the tribes of the earth mourning,
8. All the tribes of the earth seeing the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
9. The Son of Man sending his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.
10. The angels gathering together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

Mat 24:27-31
(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(28) For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
(29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

We know the destruction of Babylon was a literal historical event.

Question: When did all of these happen?

When:
1. did all the hands in Babylon fall limp?
2. did every heart in Babylon melt?
3. did the Babylonians writhe like a woman in labor?
4. were their faces aflame?
5. did the Day of The Lord come, cruel, with fury and burning anger, to make Babylon a desolation?
6. were the Babylonians exterminated from the land?
7. did the stars of heaven and their constellations not flash forth their light as associated with Babylon?
8. was the sun dark when it rose as associated with Babylon?
9. did the moon not shed it's light as associated with Babylon?

Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands will fall limp, And every man's heart will melt. They will be terrified, Pains and anguish will take hold of them; They will writhe like a woman in labor, They will look at one another in astonishment, Their faces aflame. Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light. (Isaiah 13:6-10 NASB)

Answer: When God sent the Medes to remove the kingdom from Babylon.

Isaiah 13 is the prophecy of the imminent Day of The Lord when Babylon would be judged.

Isaiah prophesied the day of The Lord destruction of Babylon when all these events, impossible to be interpreted literally, would come at the hands of the Medes in 539 BC.

"Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold." (Isaiah 13:17 NASB)

The answer to your previous series of questions:
When God sent the Romans to remove the kingdom from Old Covenant Israel.

Matthew 24 is a prophecy of the imminent Day of The Lord when Israel would be judged.

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that HE IS NEAR, RIGHT AT THE DOOR. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:29-34 NASB)

God sent the Romans, Daniel's forth and final empire, to destroy Old Covenant Israel as prophesied.

 

[Der Alte]

We know the destruction of Babylon was a literal historical event.

Question: When did all of these happen?

When:
1. did all the hands in Babylon fall limp?
2. did every heart in Babylon melt?
3. did the Babylonians writhe like a woman in labor?
4. were their faces aflame?
5. did the Day of The Lord come, cruel, with fury and burning anger, to make Babylon a desolation?
6. were the Babylonians exterminated from the land?

All literal events which do not require explaining away with some imagined figuative language. I think that many people when greatly afraid become weak, their hands included. I also have heard of many people having heart attacks in times of great fear. Writhing like a woman in labor certainly describes people being killed and tortured, to me. "Faces aflame" wasn't Babylon burned? That particular day of the Lord certainly came and the Babylonians esxterminated. As I said literal events.

7. did the stars of heaven and their constellations not flash forth their light as associated with Babylon?
8. was the sun dark when it rose as associated with Babylon?
9. did the moon not shed it's light as associated with Babylon?

During the Gulf war, day was like night and the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible. Wasn't Babylon burned? That would produce a lot of smoke wouldn't it? See no figurative language required.

Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands will fall limp, And every man's heart will melt. They will be terrified, Pains and anguish will take hold of them; They will writhe like a woman in labor, They will look at one another in astonishment, Their faces aflame. Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light. (Isaiah 13:6-10 NASB)

Answer: When God sent the Medes to remove the kingdom from Babylon.

Isaiah 13 is the prophecy of the imminent Day of The Lord when Babylon would be judged.

Isaiah prophesied the day of The Lord destruction of Babylon when all these events, impossible to be interpreted literally, would come at the hands of the Medes in 539 BC.

"Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold." (Isaiah 13:17 NASB)

I have just interpreted all the events literally, reasonably and logically. And unlike what is being proposed here, I didn't have to say that one person or thing figuratively represented another person or thing.

The answer to your previous series of questions:
When God sent the Romans to remove the kingdom from Old Covenant Israel.

Only by making everything figurative.

Matthew 24 is a prophecy of the imminent Day of The Lord when Israel would be judged.

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that HE IS NEAR, RIGHT AT THE DOOR. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:29-34 NASB)

God sent the Romans, Daniel's forth and final empire, to destroy Old Covenant Israel as prophesied.

A few of these might be explained as literal events but here is the complete list, again. As I have shown above about Babylon, please show me where all these events actually, literally happened as described in scripture without trying to spiritualize them away? See #10, Israel is never called "heaven and Earth."

I know that the temple was [literally] destroyed, ca. 70 AD, but when did all these things [literally] happen?

1. The Son of Man coming like lightning comes out of the east, and shining even unto the west.
2. Tribulation which precedes
3. the sun not giving its light.
4. The stars falling from heaven.
5. The powers of the heavens shaken.
6. The sign of the Son of man in heaven:
7. All the tribes of the earth mourning,
8. All the tribes of the earth seeing the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
9. The Son of Man sending his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.
10. The angels gathering together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

Mat 24:27-31
(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(28) For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
(29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That particular day of the Lord certainly came and the Babylonians esxterminated. As I said literal events.

During the Gulf war, day was like night and the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible. Wasn't Babylon burned?
That would produce a lot of smoke wouldn't it? See no figurative language required.

Only by making everything figurative............................

Wasn't OC Jerusalem burned?

And another good reason for OC Jerusalem and it's temple being the one showing in Revelation.
She and a lot of her people, had become like Babylon, and thus perished like Babylon.

The moon would have been obscured by smoke, but it also could have appeared to have a glow around it because of the fires, which would have given off a reddish orange tint, which could symbolize the moon as blood.
I will have to study a bit more on this......

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48397062#post48397062
Symbolism of Moon to blood Joel 2 question

Joe 2:31
The sun is turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the day of YAHWEH, the great and the fearful.
Act 2:20
the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood .......

Rev 6:12
And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and lo, a great earthquake came,
and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood,
Reve 18:8
by this, in one day shall be arriving the blows of Her, death and sorrow and famine,
and in fire She shall be being burned, that strong Lord, the God, the one judging Her
Reve 19:3
And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".

..... .... ...... ..... ....

The destruction of OC Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad70, proved to the world, and especially to the Jews, that Jesus was indeed a True Prophet sent by YAHWEH.
Read the events of the City burning:

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
The Destruction Of JERUSALEM

A Roman soldier, urged, as he declared, by a divine impulse, regardless of the command of Titus climbed on the shoulders of another, and threw a flaming brand into the golden window of the Temple, which instantly set the building on fire.
The Jews, anxious above all things to save that sacred edifice, in which they superstitiously trusted for security , with a dreadful outcry, rushed in to extinguish the flames. ...............

Titus also, being extinguish the conflagration, hastened to the spot in his chariot, attended by his principal officers and legions ; but in vain he waved his hand and raised his voice, commanding his soldiers to extinguish the fire ; so great was the uproar and confusion, that no attention was paid even to him.
The Romans, wilfully deaf instead of extinguishing the flames, spread them wider and wider....
Many, falling amongst the smoking ruins of the porches and galleries, were suffocated. The unarmed poor, and even sick persons, were slaughtered without mercy......................


.

 

[A New World]

All literal events which do not require explaining away with some imagined figuative language.

My intention is not to simply explain difficult scriptural concepts "away with some imagined figurative language."

We must make an honest attempt to interpret the intentions of the authors. The best way to accomplish this is to compare Scripture with Scripture. If language is clearly used as figurative in one place, then the same words or phrases are used elsewhere, it's possible it's also figurative there.

An example from Genesis and the life of Joseph:
"Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?” (Genesis 37:9, 10 NKJV)

Notice that Jacob knew immediately that the sun represented him, the moon Joseph's mother, and the eleven stars Joseph's brothers.

If we read Joseph's dream without Jacob's response, with our western mindset, we would likely wonder how the sun, moon, and stars could bow down to someone.

However, once we understand and we later see similar phrases we can apply the same logic Jacob applied.

For example:
"Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars." (Revelation 12:1 NKJV)

We know this in some way refers to Israel and that there's no reason to take it literally. We learn that to take this literally would be to grossly misinterpret author's intent.

I think that many people when greatly afraid become weak, their hands included. I also have heard of many people having heart attacks in times of great fear. Writhing like a woman in labor certainly describes people being killed and tortured, to me. "Faces aflame" wasn't Babylon burned? That particular day of the Lord certainly came and the Babylonians esxterminated. As I said literal events.

You have interpreted the figurative language into concepts with which you are more familiar. How is that different from what I've done?

Isaiah literally wrote, "Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man’s heart will melt," and you felt free to interpret that as "people when greatly afraid become weak, their hands included. I also have heard of many people having heart attacks in times of great fear."

Isaiah said, "every man's heart will melt," you say that means "people having heart attacks."

During the Gulf war, day was like night and the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible. Wasn't Babylon burned? That would produce a lot of smoke wouldn't it? See no figurative language required.

You interpretation of the prophecy, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine," is "the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible" because "Babylon burned" and "That would produce a lot of smoke."

Jerusalem was also burned. Therefore it also produced a lot of smoke.
Wouldn't it be consistent to interpret the following the same way?:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light" (Matthew 24:29 NKJV)

And, "the stars will fall from heaven."

Moses prophesied: "You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess." (Deuteronomy 28:62, 63 NKJV)

Matthew 24 was about the judgment of Israel. Though she would be destroyed, a remnant would be saved. Though she was once "as the stars of heaven in multitude" she would "be plucked from off the land."

When her kingdom was taken away and given to those of the New Covenant, one could rightly say, "the stars fell from heaven."

I have just interpreted all the events literally, reasonably and logically. And unlike what is being proposed here, I didn't have to say that one person or thing figuratively represented another person or thing.

You may not have to, but you did.

A few of these might be explained as literal events but here is the complete list, again. As I have shown above about Babylon, please show me where all these events actually, literally happened as described in scripture without trying to spiritualize them away?

Again, the words were never intended to be taken literally. We must study Scripture from their perspective if we have any hope of it making sense.

See #10, Israel is never called "heaven and Earth."

This is a critical point which I'm glad you mentioned. Please try to think outside the box a little and you will easily see your error.

Moses, speaking to the nation Israel:
“Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. (Deuteronomy 32:1 NKJV)

If they did not heed his warning they would face judgment. I contend that AD 70 was that judgment.

"Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law. For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess." (Deuteronomy 32:46, 47 NASB)

Isaiah also referred to the nation Israel in similar terms as he recounted her deliverance from bondage in Egypt:

"But I am the LORD your God, Who divided the sea whose waves roared— The LORD of hosts is His name. And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundations of the earth, And say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’ ” (Isaiah 51:15, 16 NKJV)

 

[Der Alte]

My intention is not to simply explain difficult scriptural concepts "away with some imagined figurative language."

We must make an honest attempt to interpret the intentions of the authors. The best way to accomplish this is to compare Scripture with Scripture. If language is clearly used as figurative in one place, then the same words or phrases are used elsewhere, it's possible it's also figurative there.

That is exactly what I have done, translated the scriptures in the most literal way posssible. I don't comb through the scriptures looking for passages that I can make figurative in order to make them fit some assumpton/presupposition.

An example from Genesis and the life of Joseph:
"Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?” (Genesis 37:9, 10 NKJV)

Notice that Jacob knew immediately that the sun represented him, the moon Joseph's mother, and the eleven stars Joseph's brothers.

If we read Joseph's dream without Jacob's response, with our western mindset, we would likely wonder how the sun, moon, and stars could bow down to someone.

Figurative language which was explained in the text. Not relevant to the present discussion.

However, once we understand and we later see similar phrases we can apply the same logic Jacob applied.

For example:
"Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars." (Revelation 12:1 NKJV)

We know this in some way refers to Israel and that there's no reason to take it literally. We learn that to take this literally would be to grossly misinterpret author's intent.

Figurative language in one place is not license to turn other passages into figurative languages simply to make them fit some assumpton/presupposition.

You have interpreted the figurative language into concepts with which you are more familiar. How is that different from what I've done?

No I have interrpeted the scripture as literally as possible

Isaiah literally wrote, "Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man’s heart will melt," and you felt free to interpret that as "people when greatly afraid become weak, their hands included. I also have heard of many people having heart attacks in times of great fear."

Isaiah said, "every man's heart will melt," you say that means "people having heart attacks."

You interpretation of the prophecy, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine," is "the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible" because "Babylon burned" and "That would produce a lot of smoke."

As I said I interpreted the scripture as literally as possible. There is a well known maxim about interpreting scripture, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

Jerusalem was also burned. Therefore it also produced a lot of smoke.
Wouldn't it be consistent to interpret the following the same way?:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light" (Matthew 24:29 NKJV)

Possibly, but then

And, "the stars will fall from heaven."

Moses prophesied: "You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess." (Deuteronomy 28:62, 63 NKJV)

Matthew 24 was about the judgment of Israel. Though she would be destroyed, a remnant would be saved. Though she was once "as the stars of heaven in multitude" she would "be plucked from off the land."

When her kingdom was taken away and given to those of the New Covenant, one could rightly say, "the stars fell from heaven."

The prophesy in Deut 28:62 was for the Jews. Why have the Jews not recognized that it supposedly happened in 70 AD? Only Christians make that claim, and that 100s of years afterward.

You may not have to, but you did.

You are making the claim that the passage is all figurative. I am not interpreting figurative languge. I'm interpreting scripture as literally as possible.

Again, the words were never intended to be taken literally. We must study Scripture from their perspective if we have any hope of it making sense.

So you say. I have made literal sense of the passage.

This is a critical point which I'm glad you mentioned. Please try to think outside the box a little and you will easily see your error.

Moses, speaking to the nation Israel:
“Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. (Deuteronomy 32:1 NKJV)

Does not call Israel "heaven" and "earth." God is calling on the universe to witness His words.

Keil and Delitszch Hebrew Commentary
Deut 32:1
Moses summons heaven and earth to hearken to his words, because the instruction which he was about to proclaim concerned both heaven and earth, i.e., the whole universe. It did so, however, not merely as treating of the honour of its Creator, which was disregarded by the murmuring people (Kamphausen), or to justify God, as the witness of the righteousness of His doings, in opposition to the faithless nation, when He punished it for its apostasy (just as in Deu_4:26; Deu_30:19; Deu_31:28-29, heaven and earth are appealed to as witnesses against rebellious Israel), but also inasmuch as heaven and earth would be affected by the judgment which God poured out upon faithless Israel and the nations, to avenge the blood of His servants (Deu_32:43); since the faithfulness and righteousness of God would thus become manifest in heaven and on earth, and the universe be sanctified and glorified thereby.

Matthew Henry Commentary
Deu 32:1-6 -
Here is, I. A commanding preface or introduction to this song of Moses, Deu_32:1, Deu_32:2. He begins, 1. With a solemn appeal to heaven and earth concerning the truth and importance of what he was about to say, and the justice of the divine proceedings against a rebellious and backsliding people, for he had said (Deu_31:28) that he would in this song call heaven and earth to record against them. Heaven and earth would sooner hear than this perverse and unthinking people; for they revolt not from the obedience to their Creator, but continue to this day, according to his ordinances, as his servants (Psa_119:89-91), and therefore will rise up in judgment against rebellious Israel.​

If they did not heed his warning they would face judgment. I contend that AD 70 was that judgment.

And I contend that anything which appears to be literal should be interpreted as literal.

"Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law. For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess." (Deuteronomy 32:46, 47 NASB)

Isaiah also referred to the nation Israel in similar terms as he recounted her deliverance from bondage in Egypt:

"But I am the LORD your God, Who divided the sea whose waves roared— The LORD of hosts is His name. And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundations of the earth, And say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’ ” (Isaiah 51:15, 16 NKJV)

Here are two pre-Christian translations which do understand God to be calling Israel, heaven and earth.

LXX Isa 51:16 I will put my words into thy mouth, and I will shelter thee under the shadow of mine hand, with which I fixed the sky, and founded the earth: and the Lord shall say to Sion, Thou art my people.

Targum isa 51:16 1 have put the words of my prophecy in thy mouth, and with the shadow of my power have I protected thee, to raise up the nation, concerning which it hath been promised that they shall be as many as the stars of heaven, and to establish the congregation it has been promised concerning them, that they shall multiply like the dust of the earth, and to say to the inhabitants of Zion, Te are my people.​

 

[A New World]

That is exactly what I have done, translated the scriptures in the most literal way posssible. I don't comb through the scriptures looking for passages that I can make figurative in order to make them fit some assumpton/presupposition.

Trying to interpret the scriptures in the most literal way possible leads to misinterpretation when figurative language is used. A failure to consider apocalyptic, figurative, metaphoric, language causes one to come up short of the intended meaning.

You seem to think that you're allowed to arbitrarily interpret figuratively.

Here again is one of the passages in question:
"For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine." (Isaiah 13:10 NKJV)

Here is your interpretation:
During the Gulf war, day was like night and the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible. Wasn't Babylon burned? That would produce a lot of smoke wouldn't it? See no figurative language required.

Isaiah did not say the light from the sun, moon and stars would be blocked from the Babylonians view. He said the stars would not give their light, the sun would be darkened, and the light of the moon would not shine.

The words of Isaiah that included the sun, moon, and stars were part of the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. Since the light of the sun, moon, and stars were not literally affected by those events, the language was figurative.

Figurative language in one place is not license to turn other passages into figurative languages simply to make them fit some assumpton/presupposition.

Figurative language in one place does not prevent it from being used in other passages. When one prophet uses figurative language to describe the destruction of a nation, it's not unreasonable to interpret a subsequent prophet that uses similar language in the same way.

Jesus continued the practice of using figurative language, consistent with Isaiah, in Matthew 24:29-31.

As I said I interpreted the scripture as literally as possible. There is a well known maxim about interpreting scripture, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

Of course that is all subjective. Plain sense to one may not be plain sense to another. I could say I that think the plain sense is that Isaiah 13:10 and Matthew 24:29 are parallel passages, that makes good sense, therefore it's nonsense to look for any other sense. That would probably cause you to either discard your maxim or to apply it selectively.

The prophesy in Deut 28:62 was for the Jews. Why have the Jews not recognized that it supposedly happened in 70 AD? Only Christians make that claim, and that 100s of years afterward.

Do you mean the Jews who killed Jesus never admitted that God removed their kingdom in AD 70 and gave it to the people of the New Covenant? Why is that an issue? I thought this was a discussion from a Christian point of view.

My point on Deut. 28 was that it not only involved a prophecy of future destruction, which I believe to be AD 70, but the term "the stars of heaven" was applied to Israel. It included the following points: "the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues, " "prolonged sicknesses," "He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt," "every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed," they would "be left few in number," they were "as the stars of heaven in multitude," "the LORD will rejoice over" them "destroy" them "and bring" them "to nothing," they would "be plucked from off the land."

The plagues, sicknesses, destruction and only a surviving remnant can surely be applied to AD 70, which also connects it with Mt. 24 and the end of the age.

You are making the claim that the passage is all figurative. I am not interpreting figurative languge. I'm interpreting scripture as literally as possible.

The plain sense of the Isaiah 13 passage dictates that it's figurative. He clearly established the context of the passage as the destruction of Babylon. Though the light from the sun, moon and stars were not literally affected, the prophecy was fulfilled. It makes good sense to see the language as figurative.

Does not call Israel "heaven" and "earth." God is calling on the universe to witness His words.

And I contend that anything which appears to be literal should be interpreted as literal.

No, the idea of God calling on the universe is definitely not taking scripture literally. How do you suppose an inanimate object can literally witness anything, especially words? Your definition of "literal" seems a little off here.

A straightforward reading of Deut. 32:1 can only be Moses speaking to Israel, referring to her as heaven and earth, but in a figurative manner.

And, an unbiased rendering of Isaiah 51:15,16 is clearly the time when God delivered Israel through the sea, gave her His Law, covered her with His hand, referred to the entire event as planting the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth.

 

[Der Alte]

Trying to interpret the scriptures in the most literal way possible leads to misinterpretation when figurative language is used. A failure to consider apocalyptic, figurative, metaphoric, language causes one to come up short of the intended meaning.

You seem to be mixed up here. Someone's assumptian that certain passages are figurative does not make it so. Interpreting scripture which appears to be literal as literal unless/until it can clearly be shown to be figurative does not come up short.

You seem to think that you're allowed to arbitrarily interpret figuratively.

There are folks around here who say that the entire Bible is allegory. When a passage can be understood as literal, much figurative interpretation appears to be arbitrary.

Here again is one of the passages in question:
"For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine." (Isaiah 13:10 NKJV)

Here is your interpretation:

During the Gulf war, day was like night and the moon, sun, and stars weren't visible. Wasn't Babylon burned? That would produce a lot of smoke wouldn't it? See no figurative language required.

Isaiah did not say the light from the sun, moon and stars would be blocked from the Babylonians view. He said the stars would not give their light, the sun would be darkened, and the light of the moon would not shine.

The words of Isaiah that included the sun, moon, and stars were part of the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. Since the light of the sun, moon, and stars were not literally affected by those events, the language was figurative.

This is hilarious. You want to make the entire passage figurative but you object when I interpret some terminology as hyperbole, which is a figure of speech that occurs many times in the Bible. But a word used hyperbolically does not make an entire verse or passage figurative.

Figurative language in one place does not prevent it from being used in other passages. When one prophet uses figurative language to describe the destruction of a nation, it's not unreasonable to interpret a subsequent prophet that uses similar language in the same way.

But one prophet did not use figurative lanaguage to describe the destruction of a nation. Everything Isaiah said can be understood literally.

Jesus continued the practice of using figurative language, consistent with Isaiah, in Matthew 24:29-31.

Of course that is all subjective. Plain sense to one may not be plain sense to another. I could say I that think the plain sense is that Isaiah 13:10 and Matthew 24:29 are parallel passages, that makes good sense, therefore it's nonsense to look for any other sense. That would probably cause you to either discard your maxim or to apply it selectively.

Mixed up again. Twisting things around. Figurative is figurative, plain sense is plain sense. The plain sense is what the words literally say. Everything that Isaiah said can be understood literally and it makes good sense.

Do you mean the Jews who killed Jesus never admitted that God removed their kingdom in AD 70 and gave it to the people of the New Covenant? Why is that an issue? I thought this was a discussion from a Christian point of view.

That the the Jews did not understand a prophecy which was addressed to them is most certainly relevant here. As I said even Christians did not espouse the preterist view until 100s of year later. I don't know of any ECF who believed that everything was fulfilled in 70 AD.

My point on Deut. 28 was that it not only involved a prophecy of future destruction, which I believe to be AD 70, but the term "the stars of heaven" was applied to Israel. It included the following points: "the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues, " "prolonged sicknesses," "He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt," "every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed," they would "be left few in number," they were "as the stars of heaven in multitude," "the LORD will rejoice over" them "destroy" them "and bring" them "to nothing," they would "be plucked from off the land."

Did you read my previous post? I quoted two preChristian Jewish sources that did not understand God to be referring to Israel as the heavens and the earth. I think they understood their Hebrew scriptures better than we do.

The plagues, sicknesses, destruction and only a surviving remnant can surely be applied to AD 70, which also connects it with Mt. 24 and the end of the age.

Literal events "plagues, sicknesses, destruction and only a surviving remnant" But many things in the prophecy have not literally happened.

The plain sense of the Isaiah 13 passage dictates that it's figurative. He clearly established the context of the passage as the destruction of Babylon. Though the light from the sun, moon and stars were not literally affected, the prophecy was fulfilled. It makes good sense to see the language as figurative.

Plain sense is plain sense and figurative is figurative. The light of the sun, moon and stars were literally affected. They may not have been directly affected.

No, the idea of God calling on the universe is definitely not taking scripture literally. How do you suppose an inanimate object can literally witness anything, especially words? Your definition of "literal" seems a little off here.

I quoted scholars, your objections do not prove them wrong.

A straightforward reading of Deut. 32:1 can only be Moses speaking to Israel, referring to her as heaven and earth, but in a figurative manner.

The Jews did not interpret their Hebrew scriptures that way. They certainly weren't biased.

And, an unbiased rendering of Isaiah 51:15,16 is clearly the time when God delivered Israel through the sea, gave her His Law, covered her with His hand, referred to the entire event as planting the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth.

That is your opinion, the Jews did not understand their Hebrew scriptures that way. Can you PROVE them wrong?

 

[A New World]

I apologize for the oversight that I think would have added to my argument on the use of figurative language in Isaiah 13.

The following omitted passage is within the context of the destruction of, and the removal of the kingdom from, Babylon:
"Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger." (Isaiah 13:13 NKJV)

Notice "the day of His fierce anger" was "the day of the LORD" that was "at hand" (v. 6). It would come at the hands of the Medes (v. 17).

Clearly God spoke through Isaiah in figurative language as he described the use of one nation in the destruction and judgment of another.

 

[A New World]

You seem to be mixed up here. Someone's assumptian that certain passages are figurative does not make it so. Interpreting scripture which appears to be literal as literal unless/until it can clearly be shown to be figurative does not come up short.

I've clearly shown that Isaiah used non-literal language as he prophesied the destruction of Babylon at the hand of the Medes.

There are folks around here who say that the entire Bible is allegory. When a passage can be understood as literal, much figurative interpretation appears to be arbitrary.

I've also read those who say the entire Bible is literal. That can be dangerous also.

This is hilarious. You want to make the entire passage figurative but you object when I interpret some terminology as hyperbole, which is a figure of speech that occurs many times in the Bible. But a word used hyperbolically does not make an entire verse or passage figurative.

I have never tried to make the entire passage figurative. You have erected a straw man. My assertion is that Isaiah used figurative language to describe the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. I have never claimed the entire passage is figurative. And apparently now you agree with me.

What are figures of speech and hyperbole? They're certainly not literal.

Hyperbole
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

I would say "figure of speech" is figurative language. What exactly is your point here? You made my point for me.

But one prophet did not use figurative lanaguage to describe the destruction of a nation. Everything Isaiah said can be understood literally.

Do you not see the contradiction in the above statement? You admit Isaiah used hyperbole, figure of speech, in describing the destruction of Babylon. Babylon was a nation. Therefore Isaiah used figurative language to describe the destruction of a nation.

Mixed up again. Twisting things around. Figurative is figurative, plain sense is plain sense. The plain sense is what the words literally say. Everything that Isaiah said can be understood literally and it makes good sense.

Contradiction! You've already admitted your error when you conceded the fact that Isaiah used hyperbolic language. Just another way of saying he used figurative language.

I'm really not sure what your position is now. Do you recognize the figurative language in Isaiah 13 or not?

That the the Jews did not understand a prophecy which was addressed to them is most certainly relevant here. As I said even Christians did not espouse the preterist view until 100s of year later. I don't know of any ECF who believed that everything was fulfilled in 70 AD.

You've made a general, indefensible statement. How do you know what "the Jews" understood? How about dealing with the text itself?

Did you read my previous post? I quoted two preChristian Jewish sources that did not understand God to be referring to Israel as the heavens and the earth. I think they understood their Hebrew scriptures better than we do.

Obviously quoting two sources from a few thousand years ago is not conclusive and neither adds nor subtracts from Scripture.

The following is an extra-biblical source from a few thousand years ago who affirms that the Jews understood a portion of the temple was "heaven," and another, "land," or earth.

Josephus wrote in reference to the tabernacle: "that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live" (Antiquities, 3:6:4)

They viewed the area of the Holies of Holies where God's Presence resided and the Temple Mount itself as "heaven and earth."

Plain sense is plain sense and figurative is figurative. The light of the sun, moon and stars were literally affected. They may not have been directly affected.

Again, the prophecy was:
1. "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light"

The stars did not literally cease giving their light.

2. "The sun will be darkened in its going forth"

The sun was never literally darkened in its going forth.

3. "And the moon will not cause its light to shine."

The moon's light was never literally caused to not shine.

Isaiah did not say the Babylonians would simply not see their light. The language was figurative.

I quoted scholars, your objections do not prove them wrong.

Scholars do not prove Scripture right or wrong.

The Jews did not interpret their Hebrew scriptures that way. They certainly weren't biased.

The Jews didn't understand or employ figurative language? The Jews weren't biased? Their interpretations were correct?

I completely disagree with that. That is your opinion, and maybe the opinions of those you've cited, not necessarily the truth of scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

I've clearly shown that Isaiah used non-literal language as he prophesied the destruction of Babylon at the hand of the Medes.

No, you have repeatedly alleged that Isaiah used figurative language. OTOH I have shown how virtually everything Isaiah said can be understood literally and for the edification of all who read this post, two translations, different places and times, by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. They did not understand this verse as God referring to Israel as heaven and earth.

LXX Isa 51:16 I will put my words into thy mouth, and I will shelter thee under the shadow of mine hand, with which I fixed the sky, and founded the earth: and the Lord shall say to Sion, Thou art my people.

Targum isa 51:16 1 have put the words of my prophecy in thy mouth, and with the shadow of my power have I protected thee, to raise up the nation, concerning which it hath been promised that they shall be as many as the stars of heaven, and to establish the congregation it has been promised concerning them, that they shall multiply like the dust of the earth, and to say to the inhabitants of Zion, They are my people.​

I have never tried to make the entire passage figurative. You have erected a straw man. My assertion is that Isaiah used figurative language to describe the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. I have never claimed the entire passage is figurative. And apparently now you agree with me.

No I do not agree with you. I refer you to my previous statement, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." My position was and remains if something makes good sense, i.e. can be understood literally, then it is nonsense to try to make it figurative. What you have tried to do is make all of the key events figurative, when as I have shown, they make "good sense" when understood literally.

What are figures of speech and hyperbole? They're certainly not literal.
...
I would say "figure of speech" is figurative language. What exactly is your point here? You made my point for me.

Do you not see the contradiction in the above statement? You admit Isaiah used hyperbole, figure of speech, in describing the destruction of Babylon. Babylon was a nation. Therefore Isaiah used figurative language to describe the destruction of a nation.

I know what hyperbole means or I would not have used the word. See my statement above, re: good sense vs. nonsense.

Contradiction! You've already admitted your error when you conceded the fact that Isaiah used hyperbolic language. Just another way of saying he used figurative language.

I'm really not sure what your position is now. Do you recognize the figurative language in Isaiah 13 or not?

My position has not changed a bit. If an event makes good sense literally, then it should be interpreted literally. If it does not make good sense literally then it very well could be figurative. But just because one thing in a verse or passage is figurative that does not mean anything else is figurative

You've made a general, indefensible statement. How do you know what "the Jews" understood? How about dealing with the text itself?

Obviously quoting two sources from a few thousand years ago is not conclusive and neither adds nor subtracts from Scripture.

I am dealing with the text! Are you even reading my posts? See my quotes from the Septuagint and the Targum, above. Obviously the two translations I quoted above are more conclusive and more credible than your speculation.

The following is an extra-biblical source from a few thousand years ago who affirms that the Jews understood a portion of the temple was "heaven," and another, "land," or earth.

Josephus wrote in reference to the tabernacle: "that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live" (Antiquities, 3:6:4)

They viewed the area of the Holies of Holies where God's Presence resided and the Temple Mount itself as "heaven and earth."

This does not say that a part olf the temple was heaven and earth but "as it were heaven" and "as it were, sea and land." The holy of holies and temple mount is not all Israel and I'm not aware of any other source which supports this. The Targum and LXX certainly don't. I did a search of the Talmud and I cannot find where the temple or holy of holies is referred to as heaven and sea and land.

Again, the prophecy was:
1. "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light"

The stars did not literally cease giving their light.

2. "The sun will be darkened in its going forth"

The sun was never literally darkened in its going forth.

3. "And the moon will not cause its light to shine."

The moon's light was never literally caused to not shine.

Isaiah did not say the Babylonians would simply not see their light. The language was figurative.

As I have shown these events can be understood in a literal way. Maybe God did not cause the sun, moon and stars to literally go dark and stop emitting light but what the Israelites experienced the effect would have been the same darkness from the smoke of Jerusalem burning.

Scholars do not prove Scripture right or wrong.

Did you even read them?

The Jews didn't understand or employ figurative language? The Jews weren't biased? Their interpretations were correct?

I completely disagree with that. That is your opinion, and maybe the opinions of those you've cited, not necessarily the truth of scripture.

I think this is a case of sour grapes. I have presented valid translations by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars and you blow it off as biased and their opinion. Is that not what you are doing? Certainly not any evidence. This was how the Jews understood the verse, and you have not even begun to prove them wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

I apologize for the oversight that I think would have added to my argument on the use of figurative language in Isaiah 13.

The following omitted passage is within the context of the destruction of, and the removal of the kingdom from, Babylon:
"Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger." (Isaiah 13:13 NKJV)

Notice "the day of His fierce anger" was "the day of the LORD" that was "at hand" (v. 6). It would come at the hands of the Medes (v. 17).

Clearly God spoke through Isaiah in figurative language as he described the use of one nation in the destruction and judgment of another.

This verse may be figurative but this does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is a partial preterist that views full preterism as a heresy, yet doesn't understand Mattew 24 as far as what happens after verse 33,34.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7711313-2/#post62099469

I call the Partial Preterist view the "Waffle doctrine"

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html
It's Not the End of the World!
by Dee Dee Warren

Commentary on Matthew 24

*SNIP*

............I had promised that although I am not dogmatic beyond verse 34 that I would explore the issue of Matthew 24 past that point a bit.
However, though I may build on this section in the future, it is not intended to be comprehensive as was the prior section.

There are two primary camps within preterism on this issue:
one view holds that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On],
and another that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off].

Proponents of the former view include Dan Trotter and Gary DeMar,
and proponents of the latter include Kenneth Gentry and Marcellus Kik.

Frankly there are strong arguments for both, and I have held both positions, in fact in writing this piece I have waffled - when I started writing I was becoming very convinced of a Pro-Switch view, now upon writing it I am back to my former position of a No-Switch view.

If in fact there is any change after verse 34, this would be what I would propose (I have not&#8212;or my poor memory is not allowing me to recall&#8212;read anyone who has made this type of the characterization): the entire Discourse has primary and typological ramifications as does almost the entirety of the Bible, properly understood. The subject matter up to verse 34 is strongly primarily speaking of the first century and only very loosely can have thematic application to the future.

After verse 34, Jesus speaks much more loosely, doesn't give a strong time referent and refers in ways that can refer to either the first century, the consummation, or both. I have swayed in various positions so it is unknown if this will be my final resting place. . . . (after completely writing this piece, I am saying probably not).



.

 

[A New World]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I wanted to be as thorough as possible.

No, you have repeatedly alleged that Isaiah used figurative language. OTOH I have shown how virtually everything Isaiah said can be understood literally and for the edification of all who read this post, two translations, different places and times, by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. They did not understand this verse as God referring to Israel as heaven and earth.

At least you've added the words 'virtually everything Isaiah said.' That's a breakthrough.

Again, It's never been my contention that entire passages are figurative. You've added that to what I've written.

The fact that you rely on pre-Christian Jewish opinion is interesting in light of the fact that we have inspired New Testament commentary that was unavailable to them.

Those of a pre-Christian mindset could not identify The Lord while He was standing in their midst. In fact, their understanding of the Old Testament was so skewed, they killed Him and used the Scriptures to justify their actions.

LXX Isa 51:16 I will put my words into thy mouth, and I will shelter thee under the shadow of mine hand, with which I fixed the sky, and founded the earth: and the Lord shall say to Sion, Thou art my people.

Targum isa 51:16 1 have put the words of my prophecy in thy mouth, and with the shadow of my power have I protected thee, to raise up the nation, concerning which it hath been promised that they shall be as many as the stars of heaven, and to establish the congregation it has been promised concerning them, that they shall multiply like the dust of the earth, and to say to the inhabitants of Zion, They are my people.​

The majority of translations use heaven, not sky, and very few add the words "dust of" the earth. These are not literal translations.

Here are a few other translations.

Young's Literal Translation:

"And I put My words in thy mouth, And with the shadow of My hand have covered thee, To plant the heavens, and to found earth, And to say to Zion, `My people [art] thou.'" (Isaiah 51:16 YLT98)

Orthodox Jewish Bible:

"And I put My words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the tzel (shadow) of Mine yad, that I may set Shomayim in place, and lay the foundations of Eretz, and say unto Tziyon, Thou art My people." (Yeshayah 51:16 OJB)

Shomayim-
heaven, heavens, sky
visible heavens, sky
as abode of the stars
as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
Heaven (as the abode of God)

Eretz- (partial definition)
land, earth
earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)
earth (inhabitants)
land

These translations, as well as many others, show God putting His Words in their mouth, covering them with the shadow of His hand, for the purpose of planting the heavens, founding the earth, and calling the people of Zion, His people.

Obviously, God did not literally put words in their mouth, cover them with a shadow, plant the heavens, lay the foundations of the earth, when He said to Zion, "You are my people."

No I do not agree with you. I refer you to my previous statement, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." My position was and remains if something makes good sense, i.e. can be understood literally, then it is nonsense to try to make it figurative. What you have tried to do is make all of the key events figurative, when as I have shown, they make "good sense" when understood literally.

Again you are misrepresenting my view by saying, "What you have tried to do is make all of the key events figurative." That is clearly not the case.

What you have done is called eisegesis. In your zeal to maintain a literalistic interpretation you've imposed on the text what you consider to be a plausible scenario. In reality, though you can imagine something like fire and smoke obscuring the light of the sun, moon, and stars, it's not found in the text. IOW your attempt at literalism ends up being speculation.

I know what hyperbole means or I would not have used the word.

Then you shouldn't have said: "I have just interpreted all the events literally, reasonably and logically. And unlike what is being proposed here, I didn't have to say that one person or thing figuratively represented another person or thing."

Then you revised your position and said: "You want to make the entire passage figurative but you object when I interpret some terminology as hyperbole, which is a figure of speech that occurs many times in the Bible. But a word used hyperbolically does not make an entire verse or passage figurative."

And then backpedal even further: "This verse (v. 13) may be figurative but this does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative."

I will repeat, Isaiah used figurative language to describe one nation being used by God to judge and destroy another nation. According to your concessions above, you also recognize my position as the correct one.

My position has not changed a bit. If an event makes good sense literally, then it should be interpreted literally. If it does not make good sense literally then it very well could be figurative. But just because one thing in a verse or passage is figurative that does not mean anything else is figurative

You are proving that your maxim is subjective. I have proven that your stated position has changed. You began by saying you had "interpreted all the events literally," and then that you "didn't have to say one person or thing represented another person or thing." Then you said you interpreted "some terminology as hyperbole."

Then you conceded that another verse in the chapter "may be figurative" but that doesn't prove that anything else in the passage is figurative. Even though you had already admitted that other things in the passage are figurative.

I am dealing with the text! Are you even reading my posts? See my quotes from the Septuagint and the Targum, above. Obviously the two translations I quoted above are more conclusive and more credible than your speculation.

You seem to think you've offered the best and only translations available. The YLT and the OJB, along with many others, show the actions of God concerning Israel were "To plant the heavens, and to found earth" which is clearly an example of figurative language.

This does not say that a part olf the temple was heaven and earth but "as it were heaven" and "as it were, sea and land." The holy of holies and temple mount is not all Israel and I'm not aware of any other source which supports this. The Targum and LXX certainly don't. I did a search of the Talmud and I cannot find where the temple or holy of holies is referred to as heaven and sea and land.

Again, I'm not saying the temple was heaven and earth, that would be taking the quote literally. The term, "as it were," indicates a figurative use.

As I have shown these events can be understood in a literal way. Maybe God did not cause the sun, moon and stars to literally go dark and stop emitting light but what the Israelites experienced the effect would have been the same darkness from the smoke of Jerusalem burning.

Or, the prophets used apocalyptic, figurative, hyperbolic language that expressed the magnitude of a catastrophic destruction and transfer of kingdoms.

When this method is consistently applied to the New Testament prophets, we begin to better understand the significance of AD 70.

I think this is a case of sour grapes. I have presented valid translations by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars and you blow it off as biased and their opinion. Is that not what you are doing? Certainly not any evidence. This was how the Jews understood the verse, and you have not even begun to prove them wrong.

Do you really want to rely on pre-Christian Jewish interpretations?

They probably did employ the more literal view that you favor. But, was that the proper approach?

I think there's a better way to pursue truth.

Let me offer an example:
Ezekiel's prophecy
"Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.&#8221; (Ezekiel 37:26-28 NKJV)

Paul's interpretation:
"And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: &#8220;I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.&#8221; (II Corinthians 6:16 NKJV)

Ezekiel prophesied an everlasting covenant of peace, and God's sanctuary in their midst forevermore. God said, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

Paul told the New Covenant church in Corinth that they were the temple of God. Then he quoted Ezekiel, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people." These words are echoed later by John, "And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, &#8220;Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Revelation 21:3 NKJV)

Peter said: "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, &#8220;Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.&#8221; (I Peter 2:5, 6 NKJV)

Both Paul and Peter would likely be ridiculed by your pre-Christian Jewish scholars for spiritualizing the text. What right did they have to twist and manipulate God's Word?

The fact is, they were the divine interpreters of the Old Testament. They give us the license to interpret passages, long thought to be literal, in a spiritual, or even allegorical manner (Gal. 4:21-31).

However, we are not free to impose our ideas on the text, we must remain within the context established by the inspired NT writers.

Also, I think it's important for me to admit the obvious. My opinions simply reflect one person trying to pursue the truth of God's Word.

May God bless the pursuit of truth.

 

[Der Alte]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I wanted to be as thorough as possible.

At least you've added the words 'virtually everything Isaiah said.' That's a breakthrough.

Again, It's never been my contention that entire passages are figurative. You've added that to what I've written.

I will henceforth ignore any diatribe you trying to tell me what I meant when I said certain things. Maybe I did not express myself in exctly the way you think I should have. Tough! I say once again for the last time my postions was and remainbd, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense!" That would automatically imply if the plain sense does not make good sense then it is prudent to look for another sense. For example Jesus was not literally a chicken spreading His wings over Jerusalem.

The fact that you rely on pre-Christian Jewish opinion is interesting in light of the fact that we have inspired New Testament commentary that was unavailable to them.

In most cases NT commentary is irrelevant. We do not use the NT to reinterpret the OT. All NT scholars have varying biases which will in many cases influence how they interpret the Bible. Case in point certain people deliberately cherry pick verses trying to support Preterism and they seek out sources which seem to support their POV. The native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars whom I quoted above did not have any Christian biases of any kind. The translations I quoted reflect what the Jews believed at a certain period in history. And nothing you have posted has proved them wrong.

Those of a pre-Christian mindset could not identify The Lord while He was standing in their midst. In fact, their understanding of the Old Testament was so skewed, they killed Him and used the Scriptures to justify their actions.

Irrelevant, that has no bearing ln how they interpreted the Jewish scriptures. What they did in that regard was exactly what was prophesied.

The majority of translations use heaven, not sky, and very few add the words "dust of" the earth. These are not literal translations.

That is the way Jews interpreted the verse for a certain period of time and nothing you have posted proves them wrong.

Here are a few other translations.

Young's Literal Translation:

"And I put My words in thy mouth, And with the shadow of My hand have covered thee, To plant the heavens, and to found earth, And to say to Zion, `My people [art] thou.'" (Isaiah 51:16 YLT98)

Orthodox Jewish Bible:

"And I put My words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the tzel (shadow) of Mine yad, that I may set Shomayim in place, and lay the foundations of Eretz, and say unto Tziyon, Thou art My people." (Yeshayah 51:16 OJB)

Shomayim-
heaven, heavens, sky
visible heavens, sky
as abode of the stars
as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
Heaven (as the abode of God)

Eretz- (partial definition)
land, earth
earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)
earth (inhabitants)
land

These translations, as well as many others, show God putting His Words in their mouth, covering them with the shadow of His hand, for the purpose of planting the heavens, founding the earth, and calling the people of Zion, His people.

Obviously, God did not literally put words in their mouth, cover them with a shadow, plant the heavens, lay the foundations of the earth, when He said to Zion, "You are my people."

Fail! I note that in the definitions you posted that, while earth can figuratively refer to "earth's inhabitants" it does not specifically refer to Israel and heaven does not figuratively refer to Israel specifically or the people of earth generally. Right there in those definitions is where you should see figurative references cited.

And another fail! Neither of these translations specifically say that heaven and earth refer to Israel. God did not put His words in Israel's mouth nor cover Israel with the shadow of His hand. That refers to Moses. The only plural pronoun is "thou"

"And I put My words in thy [sing.] mouth, and I have covered thee [sing.] in the tzel (shadow) of Mine yad, that I may set Shomayim in place, and lay the foundations of Eretz, and say unto Tziyon, Thou [plural] art My people." (Yeshayah 51:16 OJB)​

Heaven and earth occur many times in the OT and never once does it refer to Israel and it does not in Isa 51:16 as I have shown from the Targum and LXX.

Also in vs. 13 God says this.

Isa 51:13 And thou hast forgotten God who made thee, who made the sky and founded the earth; and thou wert continually afraid because of the wrath of him that afflicted thee: for whereas he counselled to take thee away, yet now where is the wrath of him that afflicted thee?​

Does God condemn Israel for their disobedience in one vs. and 2 vss. later call them the heaven and the earth? I don't think so. Note Deu 4:26, 30:19, 31:28 where God calls upon the heavens and the earth to figuratively witness against Israel. Are the heavens and the earth witnessing against Israel in 3 vss. then referring to Israel in another vs? Not according to the LXX and Targum.

Psa 19:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Psa 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

Deu 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you [Israel] this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [Israel] that I have set before you [Israel] life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Deu 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Psa 69:34 Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing that moveth therein.

Psa 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Lam 2:1 How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!

Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?​