Is this TRUE?????

Whats up with the [ DD ] garbage all over my post?

I didn't mean to do that...anybody know how I can correct it?

i was wondering what was up...only thing I can think of is if one or more of the messages you can check under the reply screen is checked.....the screen when you click post reply...I think they come in if you cut and paste scripture from a website if you have one clicked.

Also...does anyone know how you can subscribe to forum on you profile page...without receiving an e-mail evertime it's posted on...

Originally posted by davo


ETHNOS
Matthew 24:7
Mark 13:8
Luke 7:5
Luke 21:10
Luke 23:2
John 11:48
John 11:50
John 18:35
Acts 7:7
Acts 8:9
Acts 17:26
Acts 24:17
1Peter 2:9
Revelation 13:7
Revelation 14:6

davo

Click to expand...

Yeouch!! Mea stupida (or is that culpa?) I sit corrected. I forgot to use "q" instead of "th" for my search.

But I truly appreciate the correction because you not only helped me PROVE that "ethnos" is not the correct word for the Jewish race, you helped me PROVE that "genos" IS the correct word for the Jewish race based on the text itself and not just my personal opinion.

Here are examples:

1 Peter 2
9 and ye [are] a choice race [GENOS], a royal priesthood, a holy nation [ETHNOS], a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;

Click to expand...

There you have it. Genos = Race. Ethnos = Nation. Indeed, it appears as if "ethnos" is not only incorrect for Jewis race, it almost always refers specifically to NON-Jews whenever it is used.

Galatians 2
14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles [ETHNIKOS] and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles [ETHNOS] to live as Jews?

Click to expand...

And Luke 2:32 from NJKV...

Luke 2
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles [ETHNOS],
And the glory of Your people Israel."

Click to expand...

The ONLY occurrance of "ethnos" and its derivatives I could find that has ANYTHING to do with the Jewish people (besides 1 Peter 2:9, above) was Luke 7:5, and there's no way you can redefine it as "race." (I apologize if I may have missed another, but at least I believe I did the search right this time -- grin.)

Luke 7
5 because he loves our nation [ethnos] and has built our synagogue."

Click to expand...

So, thanks! Without your help, I might have had some doubts that genea was the correct word for "race."

Originally posted by davo

Yeah LOL -I doubt any of those scriptures you mentioned will get read either

davo

Click to expand...

If that was directed at me, I believe an apology is forthcoming. I may disagree with how you interpret scripture and with your escatology, but I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that our difference is due to the fact that you fail to search the scripture for the truth. I believe any reasonable person on this board deserves the same degree of respect.

npetreley,

you have yet to respond to any of my posts(not that I think I will change your mind(for that's God's job), but I like the debating). Now...
To start with 1Peter 2...in reading the absolute first verse of the Book...you know who (at least generationally) Peter is addressing...and they being the firstfruits were a holy "generation"...you (with the preconceieved thoughts, which I used to use) have readily assumed that this has to be talking of all Christians...it's not, it's discussing those he adressed the letter to in the first verse...

I think you're doing great, npetreley.  You've given me a better understanding of the scriptures, so thanks.

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
I think you're doing great, npetreley.  You've given me a better understanding of the scriptures, so thanks.

Click to expand...

Thank YOU, and bless you. I needed that.

Originally posted by jenlu
npetreley,

you have yet to respond to any of my posts(not that I think I will change your mind(for that's God's job), but I like the debating). Now...
To start with 1Peter 2...in reading the absolute first verse of the Book...

Click to expand...

I'm confused. 1 Peter 2, the first verse of the book? Do you mean 2 Peter 1:1? I've looked at 1 Peter 2:1, 1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1 and I'm still not following you.

Amazing eisegesis  In the Olivet discourse the word IS genea [ãåíåá] NOT genos. One lexicon renders the "genea" in such context as: 

"the whole multitude of men living at the same time - an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years"

Peter's use of genos here cannot -should I say does not mean race -unless you are wanting to close the doors of the church.

Anyway, as I said -you will find what you want to find, regardless of context and gramma -so we're done  

davo

Originally posted by davo

Anyway, as I said -you will find what you want to find, regardless of context and gramma -so we're done  

davo

Click to expand...

How in the world did gramma get involved in this??  Leave her out of it!!

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
How in the world did gramma get involved in this??  Leave her out of it!!

Click to expand...

What can I say -rrrrrrrrrrr!

Originally posted by davo
Amazing eisegesis  In the Olivet discourse the word IS genea NOT genos.

Click to expand...

That is eisegesis?!?!? Look, I already told you that I believe the most likely interpretation is that Jesus is referring to the generation of the people who will see the signs to which Jesus referred in earlier verses. So while I'm not 100% certain of this interpretation, I'd say we're about 90% AGREED that "genea" means one generation. I simply see no reason to completely rule out the possibility that it means "race" or the equivalent. And since you claimed that "ethnos" was the possible basis for falification, I simply demonstrated to you that ethnos could not possibly qualify. THAT is NOT eisegesis.

For the record, genea is simply a variation of genos (I had it backward in previous posts, but my brain has not been in gear lately). The fact that they're two different forms of the same word DOES make a difference, but included within the possible definitions of genea IS race, nation, era, etc.

I didn't make up the following definitions, you know. And I sincerely doubt if there's a grand anti-preterist consipracy amongst those who compile dictionaries for Biblical Greek.

1074 genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
AV - generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

1074 genea
genea
ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) genoV - genos; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

npetreley,

The first and second verse of 1Peter tell you who he is calling a chosen generation...Christians strangers, living in these areas...also you say that Jesus probably meant when he said "this generation shall not pass", that the generation that saw the signs would not pass...Let's see...Well why didn't he say it that way? He said this generation...he did not say "the" generation...Just because what Jesus said does not fit your mindset(I am there on many things now, and was there when it came to these verses before) should not allow us to change the clear meaning...He did not say, the generation that sees the signs will not pass until all these are fulfilled...He went throught all the signs first and then said THIS generation shall not pass until all these things take place...the Bible is not a code or riddle that needs to be deciphered...I challenge you to try to figure out how all the signs took place within the generation of 30-70 AD...using both scripture and secular history it can be done...

Originally posted by npetreley


Ah, you mean like the 70 weeks of daniel, where all the prophecies were fulfilled less than a year and a half after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given.

Click to expand...

Week: "[font="Arial, Helvetica"]Shabuwa`" Strongs 7620[/font]

1)seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week

 

Or perhaps you mean like in Hosea 6:1-2 where God restored Israel 3 days after Hosea spoke or wrote this.

Click to expand...

Can you show me how this is not speaking of the literal 3 days between Christ's crusifixion and rising?

Or perhaps you're talking abouthow Jesus had already been crucified before Isaiah wrote this. After all, prophecy is every time, without fail, always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and this is clearly in the past tense:

Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll effort to correct that now:

When a time limit is attached to a particular prophesies fulfillment, it is always given to be understood by how time relates to man, not how time relates to God. Every time, without fail, always.

Here are a few examples, perhaps youcan show me why I should not apply the same "elasticity" to these prophetic time limits that you are suggesting I apply to The 2nd coming.

Genesis 7:1-4, Exodus 9:1-5, Exodous11:4-5, Jeremiah 25:11, Jeremiah 29:10, 2 Chronicles 36:20-21.

All the above have 3 things in common:

1) Each was a prophecy of judgment.

2) Each was given to men trapped in time.

3) Each had a specific time statement concerning it’s fulfillment.

God spoke through Jeremiah to the nation of Israel that they would be in bondage for seventy years. Now if the futurist’s interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is applied to these passages, then the nation of Israel would be in bondage approximately 25,550,000 years! But is this an accurate interpretation? Daniel didn’t think so. For in Daniel 9:1-2, it is written:  

 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasureus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years."

The King James Version states that Daniel "understood" the number of years." What interpretive hermeneutic did Daniel use to understand the number of years the futurist’s interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-9, or the plain meaning of the phrase "seventy years?" Obviously, the plain, everyday meaning of the phrase. This alone should answer any question and settle any debate as to how to properly interpret the time statements of Biblical prophecy. However, as if this alone wasn’t enough, God gave us another proof history. In 2 Chronicles 36:20-21, God said that the nation of Israel would be in bondage "until the reign of the kingdom of Persian." History teaches us that Persia came into power in 536 BC at the over throw of the Babylonian Empire. History also teaches us that Israel was in bondage to Babylon from 606 BC until their over throw by Persia in 536 BC. That equates to exactly seventy years.


In each of these precident setting cases,  God fulfilled His word exactly when He said He would. This also brings up a very important point. God is the One who fulfills His word. Consider the following verses: 

Isaiah 46:9-1,Isaiah 55:10-11


Notice that these passages carry a prophetic implication. God stated that He would speak, declare, or purpose something before it took place, and that He would bring it to pass. He would send out His word and it shall accomplish what He desires. He would speak and bring it to pass. This includes when those things were to be fulfilled. In all of my examples, we saw that every part of the prophecies was fulfilled. There was not one part left unfulfilled. They were all fulfilled how and when God said He would fulfill them. This should show us the importance God places on His word. Not only on the how part of His word, but the when part of it as well. God stated that when He speaks something,  He will bring it to pass. Not maybe. Not sometime down the road. But, just like we saw, every part of the prophecy, i.e., the "how," the "why," and the "when," it will all be fulfilled. God declared that His word "shall not return to [Him] "empty." If a prophecy is not fulfilled when God said He would fulfill it, then it would return to Him empty.

The timing of the prophecy is just as important as the events of the prophecy.

Originally posted by npetreley


You honestly don't see the plain difference between those two and Revelation 1:7 (and all of the many parallels)?  Even from a pure literary perspective, without any context at all, any english major could tell you that the two examples you quote are metaphor.

The same is true of the other verses you cite.  For example:

"breath from your nostrils" is anthropomorphism, which is -- you guessed it, metaphor. 

Click to expand...

 

Just like:2 Thess 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.????

Or is the above suddenly to be taken "literally" [font="Arial, Helvetica"] [/font]

In sharp contrast, there is nothing whatsoever in this verse that tells you it's metaphor: "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."

Click to expand...

Sharp contrast?

Jesus "cloud coming" was to be in the Glory of the Father. I believe you have failed to support your want to divorce the Nature of Jesus' "Cloud Coming in the Glory of the Father" from the Father's "Cloud Comings in Glory" that were "seen" all throughout the OT.

What you've done is turned Rev 1:7 into metaphor simply because it involves the Lord coming in clouds.  That's not how you interpret ANYTHING let alone scripture.  For example, what if one of the gospels said, "Thomas would not believe that it was the resurrected Jesus.  So Jesus made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all his disciples and when Thomas saw and touched it, he believed."  

 

Click to expand...

 

Lets not deal in "what if's" OK? Lets deal in "What is"

Again, I see no scriptural support for divorcing the nature of Jesus' cloud coming from the Fathers many cloud comings. Jesus' Cloud coming in Judgement, in The Fathers Glory, must be understood in the same nature as all previous Cloud comings in judgement and Glory of the Father.

Jesus original audience would not have understood it any other way, nor did they.

Originally posted by jenlu
npetreley,
The first and second verse of 1 Peter tell you who he is calling a chosen generation...Christians strangers, living in these areas...

Click to expand...

I'm truly sorry jenlu, but I'm still having a lot of trouble following your points. Are you saying that the people to which Peter refers in 1 Peter 1:1 are the same people in 1 Peter 2:9? I'd have to check, but I would assume that's true. But I don't get the significance.

Originally posted by jenlu
also you say that Jesus probably meant when he said "this generation shall not pass", that the generation that saw the signs would not pass...Let's see...Well why didn't he say it that way? ... He did not say, the generation that sees the signs will not pass until all these are fulfilled...He went throught all the signs first and then said THIS generation shall not pass until all these things take place...

Click to expand...

No, He did NOT say "the generation that sees the signs." Neither did He say "the current generation living today." IMO that leaves it open as to which generation he's talking about.

More important, e described signs, and then made a deliberate comparison to a budding fig tree to make the point that these are VISIBLE signs which can be readily interpreted to mean everything will now be fulfilled.

Now let's look at one of those signs:

29 "Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

Click to expand...

The word used here is optanomai. It means to gape at something in awe. It's a literal word, not a figurative one.

optanomai

of the primary (middle voice) optomai op'-tom-ahee; which is used for it in certain tenses; and both as alternate of oraw - horao 3708 to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable):--appear, look, see, show self.

So we have a choice here. Are we going to interpret the former text to read "the current generation living today" and then write off "they will see" as a metaphor that does not conform to the language of metaphor? Or are we going to accept the plain meaning of "they will see" a choice which is BOLSTERED by the fact that Jesus takes the trouble to give them a comparison to the fig tree to empahsize that THEY WILL DEFINITELY SEE the signs, and interpret the text to read "the generation that sees these signs" or perhaps some unexplored alternative explanation?

You've made your choice. I'm not asking you to unmake it or believe what I believe. We'll all find out eventually which is correct and which is incorrect.

But IMO the preterist view has several serious problems, not the least of which is the fact that preterism pivots on words like "this" and "you", which are constantly used in nebulous terms (as a writer, I am only too familiar with the consequences of using the editorial "you" and having it misinterpreted as meaning the person to whom I am writing).

I've been candid about the potential problems with various alternate views. I've even stated here that I personally believe "genea" refers to generation and not race. If you really want to get me started on some rants, ask me if I believe there is evidence for pre-trib rapture!

It would be nice if the preterists would acknowledge that there are some potential problems with their view, too, but hey, each to his own attitude.

Originally posted by parousia70

Just like:2 Thess 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.???? ... etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's metaphor (although, strictly speaking, it's impossible to say that with 100% certainty). But you're still not seeing the difference between metaphorical language and declarative statements. There's a big difference between this metaphor and "you will see the Son of Man coming..."

Originally posted by parousia70

Can you show me how this is not speaking of the literal 3 days between Christ's crusifixion and rising?

Click to expand...

If I tell you something is going to happen after two days, will you understand that to mean two days starting some indeterminate point in the future? I thought that was something you didn't consider possible in the Bible.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll effort to correct that now:

When a time limit is attached to a particular prophesies fulfillment, it is always given to be understood by how time relates to man, not how time relates to God. Every time, without fail, always.

Click to expand...

5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?"
7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time.

Click to expand...

So are you telling me that these prophecies were fulfilled 3 1/2 years after Daniel got that answer?

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
I think you're doing great, npetreley.  You've given me a better understanding of the scriptures, so thanks.

Click to expand...

I will second that Auntie! npetreley is quite knowledgable! I admire his determination. Thanks npetreley!

P70, davo, you guys are smart too, but, well you know where I stand. And you probably don't care. 

 

 

Originally posted by GTX

I will second that Auntie! npetreley is quite knowledgable! I admire his determination. Thanks npetreley!

Click to expand...

I've been feeling quite brain-dead lately, so I'm surprised anyone would say that, but thanks a zillion for the encouragement!