Last Days Timing

[EclipseEventSigns]

Again, it doesnt mean 2,000 years in the future. You cannot prove it does mean that...

I did. I reference exactly where.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Oh, I have no stumble with these passages. They line up perfectly for me. I'm not the one saying near does not mean near.
I'm challenenging your interpretation, as I find it lacking.

Who does the author exhort to have such endurance? Let's look:
"36 For you [1st century Hebrew Christians] have need of endurance, so that after you [1st century Hebrew Christians] have done the will of God, you [1st century Hebrew Christians] may receive the promise:

Why did the author insist that the 1st century Hebrew Christians needed to endure until His coming?

James exhorts His audience similarly:
5: 7Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain.

Perhaps you can explain how the 1st centiury brethren of James could be Patient until the Lords Coming?
Is it your contention that they are still in danger of losing their patience and endurance today?


Ok, lets compare with Matthew 24:33 then.
33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Is it your contention that jesus meant the ambiguous, thousands of years away "near" that you prefer here?

If not, why not?

Do you think James was Ignorant of Jesus words here when he wrote Jas 5:8-9, which is practially a verbatim quote of Matt 24:33? That those two passages have no relation whatsoever?

I see no scriptural instruction to conclude anything of the sort.

I'm just not interested in going around in circles and circles and arguing. I've stated the clear examples in Scripture showing the actual meanings. If you don't want to accept that, then that is your choice. I've put forward what it says and don't need to say anything further.

 

[Lost4words]

I did. I reference exactly where.

I saw it, but, again, thats your interpretation my friend...

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I saw it, but, again, thats your interpretation my friend...

My reply is the same as #82

 

[Lost4words]

My reply is the same as #82

God bless you my friend

 

[claninja]

there is again a mistranslation or at least a wrong assumption. "Is near" is not the best rendering of what is meant. It should be "approaches" or "draws near".

Can’t be “approaches” or “draws near” when the verb is in the perfect indicative active. It’s a different tense. James 5:8 and 1 peter 4:7 both use the perfect tense.

“1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).”

If the verb tenses were present tense or future, your argument would be better. But as it is, the Greek tenses are perfect.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Can’t be “approaches” or “draws near” when the verb is in the perfect indicative active. It’s a different tense. James 5:8 and 1 peter 4:7 both use the perfect tense.

“1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).”

If the verb tenses were present tense or future, your argument would be better. But as it is, the Greek tenses are perfect.

I seem to be attacked as if this is something that my theology depends on. It does not. I'm just researching and reporting what the translations and original Aramaic say. It says what it says. I have no horse in the race. It seems others NEED it to use the English word "near". I hope you all realize that the texts were not originally written in English.

There must be the recognition that when people argue that it MUST be "near" and that means a time of very short duration, the verb doesn't actually mean that. Otherwise, the authors would use the verb "arrived. As in "the time has arrived". And as was pointed out the particular verb tense is perfect (ie. the action has completed). So the time "has approached" or "has been brought near". The time has completed its act of starting to approach and is in the process of completing its arrival but has yet to reach its destination. So there is still the sense of a current action (ie. there is inertia moving it forward until when the arrival happens at a future point).

See I Peter 4:7 for an example of the same word used: "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." (NASB20). Are you going to say that the end of all things also happened by 70 AD? Peter said it was near. And we are still waiting 2000 years later.

I would suggest that "near" is not as near as some people want to make it be.

 

[keras]

I would suggest that "near" is not as near as some people want to make it be.

We are told twice, that there is earthly time and heavenly time.
Time to us humans, dictated by the earth rotation and orbit and time to Eternal God. Which He tells us in Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, it is the same as one day to Him, while a thousand years passes on earth.

Therefore; the use of 'near' by Peter, refers to God's timing. Proved by Hosea 6:2, where we are told that the Lord will revive us for 2 'days', then we will live in His Presence for the final 'day'. Fulfilled by the nearly 2000 years since Jesus came to revive us with His Gospel, to Return and then reign on earth for the next thousand years.

 

[claninja]

I seem to be attacked as if this is something that my theology depends on. It does not. I'm just researching and reporting what the translations and original Aramaic say. It says what it says. I have no horse in the race. It seems others NEED it to use the English word "near". I hope you all realize that the texts were not originally written in English.

There must be the recognition that when people argue that it MUST be "near" and that means a time of very short duration, the verb doesn't actually mean that. Otherwise, the authors would use the verb "arrived. As in "the time has arrived". And as was pointed out the particular verb tense is perfect (ie. the action has completed). So the time "has approached" or "has been brought near". The time has completed its act of starting to approach and is in the process of completing its arrival but has yet to reach its destination. So there is still the sense of a current action (ie. there is inertia moving it forward until when the arrival happens at a future point).

See I Peter 4:7 for an example of the same word used: "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." (NASB20). Are you going to say that the end of all things also happened by 70 AD? Peter said it was near. And we are still waiting 2000 years later.

I would suggest that "near" is not as near as some people want to make it be.

1.) Just in case you may have forgot. This a a debate and discussion forum, so there will be debates and discussions from different perspectives. We all have a “horse in the race” during a debate.

2.) can you provide sources for the original Aramaic gospels and epistles in regards to “near”? I would be very interested if you have access to that. Thanks In advance.

3.) “attacked” is a little dramatic. You did type the following, no?

“Again, the invitation is there for you to prove it says what you claim in your opinion“

So I provided the actual definition of the word eggizo via the perfect indicative active, which is evidence that the word, in the perfect indicative active, means literal nearness, closeness, or imminence.

So contrary to your statement that provides no actual evidence or sources, except your opinion, eggizo, in the perfect indicative active, does mean literal nearness or closeness.

1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448(eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).” - helps word studies.

now, Can you provide any scholarly sources that demonstrate eggizo, in the perfect active indicative, does not mean literal nearness or closeness?

4.) Near doesn’t mean near to those who believe these passages are about the literal end of the entire globe.

Near does mean literally near to those who believe these passages talk about the destruction of Jerusalem.

So while you may find it strange that the preterist theology props up its theology with the definition of words as found in scholarly sources, I find it strange that futurists rely on changing the definition of words as found in scholarly sources to prop up their theology. But again, you may be able to prove me wrong by providing any reputable Greek scholarly sources that state eggizo, in the perfect indicative active, does not mean literal nearness.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

1.) Just in case you may have forgot. This a a debate and discussion forum, so there will be debates and discussions from different perspectives. We all have a “horse in the race” during a debate.

2.) can you provide sources for the original Aramaic gospels and epistles in regards to “near”? I would be very interested if you have access to that. Thanks In advance.

3.) “attacked” is a little dramatic. You did type the following, no?

“Again, the invitation is there for you to prove it says what you claim in your opinion“

So I provided the actual definition of the word eggizo via the perfect indicative active, which is evidence that the word, in the perfect indicative active, means literal nearness, closeness, or imminence.

So contrary to your statement that provides no actual evidence or sources, except your opinion, eggizo, in the perfect indicative active, does mean literal nearness or closeness.

1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448(eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).” - helps word studies.

now, Can you provide any scholarly sources that demonstrate eggizo, in the perfect active indicative, does not mean literal nearness or closeness?

4.) Near doesn’t mean near to those who believe these passages are about the literal end of the entire globe.

Near does mean literally near to those who believe these passages talk about the destruction of Jerusalem.

So while you may find it strange that the preterist theology props up its theology with the definition of words as found in scholarly sources, I find it strange that futurists rely on changing the definition of words as found in scholarly sources to prop up their theology. But again, you may be able to prove me wrong by providing any reputable Greek scholarly sources that state eggizo, in the perfect indicative active, does not mean literal nearness.

Again, not interested in playing word games especially from "scholarly sources". That is a fool's game. Most of them do not even believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Not falling for that.
The text says what it says. Read it in all in its context. If one is honest with the text and not insert any pet doctrines or suppositions by "experts", the plain meaning will be obvious. And no, I do not have a horse in this race. Truth and accuracy is the only goal. Not interested in "debate" as if there are more than one right answer. There is only one correct way to view any text. That's why I dismiss out of hand anyone that comes with their denominational opinion without proving it directly from the original text (ie. the Aramaic - not the Greek). If you want an essential study source for the Aramaic Peshitta, refer here: Peshitta New Testament

 

[claninja]

Again, not interested in playing word games especially from "scholarly sources". That is a fool's game. Most of them do not even believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Not falling for that.
The text says what it says. Read it in all in its context. If one is honest with the text and not insert any pet doctrines or suppositions by "experts", the plain meaning will be obvious. And no, I do not have a horse in this race. Truth and accuracy is the only goal. Not interested in "debate" as if there are more than one right answer. There is only one correct way to view any text. That's why I dismiss out of hand anyone that comes with their denominational opinion without proving it directly from the original text (ie. the Aramaic - not the Greek). If you want an essential study source for the Aramaic Peshitta, refer here: Peshitta New Testament

Interesting, so you require evidence from those that oppose your position, but then when asked of you, you don’t need to provide any because it’s a “fools game” and the “text says what it says”…….well that’s very telling

Truth and accuracy are my “horse in the race” as well, hence I try to learn as much as I can about Greek and historical context. It’s what lead me from futurism to partial preterism. But, like I said, if I’m wrong, I’m very open to learning, so if you have some other source that defines eggízō, in the perfect tense, to mean something else, i would dearly much like to know. However, something tells me, you don’t, and will continue to put forth your opinion without any evidence, while at the same time demanding everyone else provide proof.


As to the Aramaic…….Bummer, I’m aware of the Aramaic peshitta, but that’s not original. I was hoping you had sources to the long lost originals that are so far only theorized.

 

[Lost4words]

Interesting, so you require evidence from those that oppose your position, but then when asked of you, you don’t need to provide any because it’s a “fools game” and the “text says what it says”…….well that’s very telling

Truth and accuracy are my “horse in the race” as well, hence I try to learn as much as I can about Greek and historical context. It’s what lead from futurism to partial preterism. But, like I said, if I’m wrong, I’m very open to learning, so if you have some other source that defines eggízō, in the perfect tense, to mean something else, i would dearly much like to know. However, something tells me, you don’t, and will continue to put forth your opinion without any evidence, while at the same time demanding everyone else provide proof.


As to the Aramaic…….Bummer, I’m aware of the Aramaic peshitta, but that’s not original. I was hoping you had sources to the long lost originals that are so far only theorized.

Well said. Totally agree...

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Here are some more observations about what is meant for what English versions translate as "near". And to be clear, this is for discussion. And will not be interested in responding to those who just want to attack and want to debate and argue. This is a continuation of my #87 comment.

I think a major point that has been forgotten in this discussion is that the New Testament verses that have been brought forward have their roots in Old Testament scriptures. That is, the New Testament authors obviously did not have the completion or even the majority of New Testament sources when they were writing. They were obviously Jews who had a deep familiarity with Old Testament prophetic language. "Last days" and the "coming of the Lord" were very much tied to the "Day of the Lord" which consistently shows up in the Old Testament prophets.

For example, Zephaniah 1:14 which was written during the time of King Josiah circa 620 BC.
"The great day of the LORD is near,
near and hastening fast;
the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter;
the mighty man cries aloud there." (ESV)

Here there it is even the superlative "great day". It is near but has not arrived yet. In fact, it is still "hastening fast". So even 600 years before the New Testament authors, the Day of the Lord had begun to approach but was not complete yet. How is this supposed to be understood?

There has been some discussion about the way God views time. What many have recognized over the centuries about a Day being as a 1000 years. There is the assumption (there is no specific proof in Scripture) that all of human history will encompass a period of 7000 years. This is based on the Creation Week as a type for the Great Week. The Day of the Lord is equated with the rule of Christ in Israel and the rule of Christ is during the final millennium. Therefore, if the 7th Day is 1000 years, then the previous 6 Days are also periods of 1000 years.

This being the case, the Zephaniah passage was written in the 4th Day. The New Testament passages were written in the very beginning of the 5th Day. And they were anticipating and prophesying about the last 7th Day. When you consider what position the Days were in the Great Week, then, yes, the 7th Day is near and hastening quickly. For they were in the last half of the Great Week at that point.

 

[Lost4words]

Whichever way you put it, in any language, tongue etc...near means near! It doesnt mean in 2,000 years time......

 

[keras]

Whichever way you put it, in any language, tongue etc...near means near! It doesnt mean in 2,000 years time......

The historical fact is that almost 2000 years HAVE passed since Jesus departed after His first Advent.

There is Biblical and historical proofs of the 3 2000 year tranches and then the final 1000 year Millennium to come.
Seven thousand years IS God's Plan and decreed time for mankind. Remember: God is a God who uses special numbers, like 12 and 40, but 7 is very special and we humans have had 6000 years to get our act together and have failed, so the final thousand years will be the world's Sabbath, with humans living in the way God originally intended.

If it doesn't take place this way, then Satan will have won and all is lost for mankind.

 

[Lost4words]

The historical fact is that almost 2000 years HAVE passed since Jesus departed after His first Advent.

There is Biblical and historical proofs of the 3 2000 year tranches and then the final 1000 year Millennium to come.
Seven thousand years IS God's Plan and decreed time for mankind. Remember: God is a God who uses special numbers, like 12 and 40, but 7 is very special and we humans have had 6000 years to get our act together and have failed, so the final thousand years will be the world's Sabbath, with humans living in the way God originally intended.

If it doesn't take place this way, then Satan will have won and all is lost for mankind.

Satan has already lost.

Jesus was triumphant....

 

[keras]

Satan has already lost.

Jesus was triumphant....

Where do you live? On planet X?
Because on planet earth, Satan has a good hold on many people and he seeks to deceive more; 1 Peter 5:8-9

 

[Lost4words]

Where do you live? On planet X?
Because on planet earth, Satan has a good hold on many people and he seeks to deceive more; 1 Peter 5:8-9

Jesus has been triumphant!

 

[claninja]

Here are some more observations about what is meant for what English versions translate as "near". And to be clear, this is for discussion. And will not be interested in responding to those who just want to attack and want to debate and argue. This is a continuation of my #87 comment.

I think a major point that has been forgotten in this discussion is that the New Testament verses that have been brought forward have their roots in Old Testament scriptures. That is, the New Testament authors obviously did not have the completion or even the majority of New Testament sources when they were writing. They were obviously Jews who had a deep familiarity with Old Testament prophetic language. "Last days" and the "coming of the Lord" were very much tied to the "Day of the Lord" which consistently shows up in the Old Testament prophets.

For example, Zephaniah 1:14 which was written during the time of King Josiah circa 620 BC.
"The great day of the LORD is near,
near and hastening fast;
the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter;
the mighty man cries aloud there." (ESV)

Here there it is even the superlative "great day". It is near but has not arrived yet. In fact, it is still "hastening fast". So even 600 years before the New Testament authors, the Day of the Lord had begun to approach but was not complete yet. How is this supposed to be understood?

There has been some discussion about the way God views time. What many have recognized over the centuries about a Day being as a 1000 years. There is the assumption (there is no specific proof in Scripture) that all of human history will encompass a period of 7000 years. This is based on the Creation Week as a type for the Great Week. The Day of the Lord is equated with the rule of Christ in Israel and the rule of Christ is during the final millennium. Therefore, if the 7th Day is 1000 years, then the previous 6 Days are also periods of 1000 years.

This being the case, the Zephaniah passage was written in the 4th Day. The New Testament passages were written in the very beginning of the 5th Day. And they were anticipating and prophesying about the last 7th Day. When you consider what position the Days were in the Great Week, then, yes, the 7th Day is near and hastening quickly. For they were in the last half of the Great Week at that point.

The near event that Zephaniah was prophesying about was the literal soon coming invasion by Babylon. It’s pretty straightforward when you understand historical context, instead of trying to foist the man made millennial day theory onto the passage.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The near event that Zephaniah was prophesying about was the literal soon coming invasion by Babylon. It’s pretty straightforward when you understand historical context, instead of trying to foist the man made millennial day theory onto the passage.

Your opinion is NOT how the Old Testament prophets prophesied. They very often mixed short term judgments by God with His ultimate judgment on the nations and the final restoration of Israel. If you do not know this, you should read the prophets again completely. Most people don't do this and have never done this.

Zephaniah is a perfect example of this.
"The LORD has taken away the judgments against you;
he has cleared away your enemies.
The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst;
you shall never again fear evil." Zeph 3:14

Are you really going to say that the Lord has been made the King of Israel and fulfilled this prophecy? The "Day of the Lord" which Zephaniah talks about always refers to a yet future time from them and us.