Preterists: Did anyone SEE Jesus come again?

[edpobre]

Originally posted by parousia70
Ed, I must assume from your lack of rebuttal of the bulk of my previous post, you stand in agreement with it.

Good. Thats a start anyway.

It's not that I agree with the bulk of your previous post. It's that you threw a lot of smoke screen that I find it hard to separate the grain from the chaff. Don't worry, I'll get to them somehow.

You seem to be avioding the facts here Ed.

Acts 1 clearly states the disciples were gazing "into heaven".

Tell me Ed, Can a Human being see the interior of heaven with physical eyes?

Let's see who is avoiding the facts parousia70.

Acts 1:9-11 NKJV states:

(9)"Now when he had spoken these things, while they watched, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. 

(10)And while they looked steadfastly TOWARD heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,

(11)who also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in like manner AS you SAW him go into heaven."

The facts are:

1) the disciples WATCHED as Jesus was taken up into heaven;

2) the disciples looked steadfastly TOWARD heaven as he went up;

3) the disciples stood "gazing up into heaven."

And you ask: Tell me Ed, Can a Human being see the interior of heaven with physical eyes? I didn't know that "gazing up into heaven "IMPLIES" seeing the INTERIOR of heaven with physical eyes. How did you get this idea parousia70?

Tell me Ed, Does "In Like manner" mean "exactitude of detail"? If so , just how much in "Like Manner" as the departure will His return Be?

The Bible says: "This same Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven, WILL COME in like manner AS you SAW him GO into heaven." 

His disciples SAW him taken up into heaven and a cloud RECEIVED him out of their sight. On the other hand, ALL tribes of the earth (not only disciples) will SEE the Son of Man coming ON the clouds of heaven.

The only MANNER that is SIMILAR to BOTH Jesus' going into heaven and his coming from heaven is his VISIBILITY or his being a MAN.

And that's what this thread is all about. Did anyone SEE Jesus COMING on the clouds of heaven in 70 AD?

Ed

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by parousia70
Show me the scripture that gives you reason and warrant to interprate "The Heavens being disolved" of 2 Peter 3 in polar opposite fashion to "the heavens being dissolved" of Isaiah 34.

2 Peter 3:5-6: " For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

2 Peter 3:7 - "But the heavens and earth that now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdituon of ungodly men."

Tell me parousia70, was Noah's flood literal or symbolic? Do you doubt apostle Peter's word?

Ed

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by edpobre
2 Peter 3:5-6: " For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

2 Peter 3:7 - "But the heavens and earth that now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdituon of ungodly men."

Tell me parousia70, was Noah's flood literal or symbolic? Do you doubt apostle Peter's word?

Ed

Ed, Ed, Ed...

Do you mean to tell me you believe the earth got destroyed in the Flood, then replaced with a new earth after the flood?

The fact is, it 's the same earth today as it was before the flood, yet Peter claims it is in fact different earth than the earth in Noah's day.

Since the Physical Heavens and Earth didn't get destroyed, then replaced in the Flood, we can't import the unbiblical idea the the Physical Heavens and earth of Peters day would be destroyed, then replaced because Peter equates the destruction of "his" heavens and earth, with the "Destruction" of Noah's Heavens and earth.

Neither the H&E of Noah's day or of Peters day would, or did see physical destruction.

What was destroyed in Noah's day, and what was "about to be destroyed" in Peters day, was the ungodly system, the rebellious people. The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time. 

Now Ed....would you finally care to comment on the words of Isaiah?

Was the Heaven and earth destroyed at the Judgement of Edom? The Bible says it was.

Was the Heaven and earth also destroyed when the Medes invaded Babylon? The Bible says it was.

Was the Heaven and Earth also destroyed when the Assyrians invaded Egypt? The Bible says it was.

Do you doubt Isaiah's word?

 

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by edpobre
2 Peter 3:5-6: " For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

2 Peter 3:7 - "But the heavens and earth that now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdituon of ungodly men."

Tell me parousia70, was Noah's flood literal or symbolic? Do you doubt apostle Peter's word?

Ed, Ed, Ed...

Do you mean to tell me you believe the earth got destroyed in the Flood, then replaced with a new earth after the flood?

The fact is, it 's the same earth today as it was before the flood, yet Peter claims it is in fact different earth than the earth in Noah's day.

Since the Physical Heavens and Earth didn't get destroyed, then replaced in the Flood, we can't import the unbiblical idea the the Physical Heavens and earth of Peters day would be destroyed, then replaced because Peter equates the destruction of "his" heavens and earth, with the "Destruction" of Noah's Heavens and earth.

Neither the H&E of Noah's day or of Peters day would, or did see physical destruction.

What was destroyed in Noah's day, and what was "about to be destroyed" in Peters day, was the ungodly system, the rebellious people. The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time.

Now Ed....would you finally care to comment on the words of Isaiah?

Was the Heaven and earth destroyed at the Judgement of Edom? The Bible says it was.

Was the Heaven and earth also destroyed when the Medes invaded Babylon? The Bible says it was.

Was the Heaven and Earth also destroyed when the Assyrians invaded Egypt? The Bible says it was.

Do you doubt Isaiah's word?

”Peter equates the destruction of "his" heavens and earth, with the "Destruction" of Noah's Heavens and earth.” Where does Peter do this?

”What was destroyed in Noah's day, and what was "about to be destroyed" in Peters day, was the ungodly system, the rebellious people. The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time.” Reading your own presuppositions and assumptions into the text. You must prove that the “heaven and earth” spoken of by Peter “really means people and institutions, not just assume that. Peter does not say that the heavens and the earth were destroyed in Noah’s day but that the world “perished”

”The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time.” This is about the most flagrant incident of eisegesis I have seen in a long time. Please show us how you translate “operational economy” from the Greek here. Had God intended for Peter to say “operational economy” that is what he would have written. There is a perfectly acceptable Greek word for economy, in fact it is where we get our English word economy, oikonomia

”would you finally care to comment on the words of Isaiah?” I would be glad to comment on Isaiah, from the original Hebrew, if you just tell me which verses you are talking about.

 

[OldShepherd]

A little something I DL from this site.

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/august99.htm

The basis for the dogma
Preterists strive for consistency in their view of Bible prophecy. The goal is admirable. But when a series of propositions is linked, and they are grounded on the same faulty foundation, when one of them topples - like dominos in a line - they all fall. So it is with the A.D. 70 theory.
Here is the problem. In studying the New Testament material relative to the “coming” of Christ, preterists note that:

1. There are passages which seem to speak of the nearness of the Lord’s coming - from a first-century vantage point (cf. Jas. 5:8).
2. They observe that there are texts which indicate a “coming” in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (cf. Mt. 24:30).
3. Combining these, they conclude that the Savior’s “second coming” must have transpired in A.D. 70.
4. Furthermore, since the Scriptures are clear as to the fact that the resurrection of the dead, the judgment day, and the end of the world will all occur on the day the Lord returns, the advocates of “realized eschatology” are forced to “spiritualize” these several happenings, contending that all will take place at the same time. In this “interpretive” process, a whole host of biblical terms must be redefined in order to make them fit the scheme.

And so, while preterists attempt to be consistent, it is nonetheless a sad reality that they are consistently wrong.

Prophetic Imminence

A major fallacy of the preterist mentality is a failure to recognize the elasticity of chronological jargon within the context of biblical prophecy. It is a rather common trait in prophetic language that an event, while literally in the remote future, may be described as near. The purpose in this sort of language to is emphasize the certainty of the prophecy’s fulfillment.
Obadiah, for instance, foretold the final day of earth’s history. Concerning that event, he said: “For the day of Jehovah is near upon all the nations...” (vs. 15). This cannot refer to some local judgment, for “all nations” are to be involved. And yet, the event is depicted as “near.”

There are numerous prophecies of this nature, including passages like James 5:7 - “the coming of the Lord is at hand.” James could not have been predicting the literally imminent return of the Savior, for such knowledge was not made available to the Lord’s penmen. Not even Jesus himself knew of the time of his return to earth (Mt. 24:26).
The components explained and briefly refuted

Let us give brief consideration to the four eschatological events that are supposed to have occurred in A.D. 70 - the Lord’s Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment, and the end of the world.

1. Was there a sense in which Christ “came” to folks at various times and places? Yes, and no serious student of the Bible denies this. Jesus “came” on the day of Pentecost via the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (see Jn. 14:18). The coming was representative, not literal. The Lord warned the brethren in Ephesus that if they did not repent, he would “come” to them in judgment, and they would forfeit their identity as a faithful congregation (Rev. 2:5). In describing the horrible judgment to be inflicted upon rebellious Jerusalem, Jesus, employing imagery from the Old Testament, spoke of his “coming” in power and glory (Mt. 24:30). Again, this was a representative “coming” by means of the Roman forces (cf. Mt. 22:7). Verse 34 of Matthew 24 clearly indicates that this event was to occur before that first-century generation passed away. For further consideration of this point, see the essay on “Matthew 24” in our Archives.
   The Lord’s “second coming,” however, will be as visibly apparent as his ascension back into heaven was (Acts 1:11). Indeed, he will be “revealed” (2 Thes. 1:7), or “appear” to all (2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 9:28).
   It is a mistake of horrible proportions to confuse the symbolic “comings” of Christ with the “second” (cf. Heb. 9:28) coming. And this is what the preterists do.
2. It is utterly incredible that the preterists should deny the eventual resurrection of the human body - just as the Sadducees did twenty centuries ago (Acts 23:8). The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians was written to counter this error: “How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead [ones - plural]?” (15:12).
   
   But those who subscribe to the notion of “realized eschatology” spiritualize the concept of the resurrection, alleging that such references are merely to the emergence of the church from an era of anti-Christian persecution. In other words, it is the “resurrection” of a cause, not a resurrection of people.
   
   The theory is flawed in several particulars, but consider these two points:
   (a) The Scriptures speak of the “resurrection” as involving both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Where, in the preterist scheme of things, is the resurrection of “evil”? Was the “cause” of evil to emerge at the same time as the “cause” of truth?
   (b) As noted above, the resurrection contemplated in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the raising of “dead ones” (masculine, plural) - not an abstract “cause” (neuter, singular). Significantly, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is cited as a precursor to the general resurrection - in this very context (15:20, 23).
   
   Christ charged that those who deny the resurrection of the body are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God (Mt. 22:29).
3. The Bible speaks of a coming “day of judgment” (Mt. 11:22). Preterists limit this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But the theory simply does not fit the facts. The devastation of A.D. 70 involved only the Jews. The final day of judgment will embrace the entire human family - past, present, and future (Acts 17:31). The citizens of ancient Nineveh will be present on the day of judgment (see Mt. 12:41), as will other pagan peoples. But these folks were not in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. How can clear passages of this nature be ignored?
   
   Here is an interesting thought. When Paul defended his case before the Roman governor, Felix, he spoke of “the judgment to come,” and the ruler was “terrified” (Acts 24:25). Why would a Roman be “terrified” with reference to the impending destruction of Judaism - when he would be on the winning side, not the losing one?
4. According to the preterists, the “end of the world,” as this expression is employed in Bible prophecy, does not allude to the destruction of this planet. Rather, “world” has reference to the Jewish world, thus, the end of the Jewish age. This, they allege, occurred in A.D. 70.
   But this view simply is not viable. Consider these two brief but potent points.
   
   (a) The responsibilities of the Great Commission - to teach and immerse lost souls - was commensurate with that era preceding the “end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20). If the “end of the world” occurred in A.D. 70, then the Lord’s Commission is valid no longer. This conclusion, of course, is absurd.
   
   (b) In the Parable of the Tares, Jesus taught that at “the end of the world” the “tares” (i.e., evil ones) would be removed from his kingdom and burned (Mt. 13:39-40). Did that transpire with the destruction of Judaism? It did not. The notion that the “end of the world” is past already is false.

The dogma of “preterism” or “realized eschatology” is erroneous from beginning to end. For a more detailed consideration of this matter, see our book, The A.D. 70 Theory, listed in the Catalog section of this web site.

A common method of propagation

The doctrine of preterism is so radically unorthodox that its advocates realize that their efforts to win converts represents a formidable task. Consequently, they have developed a covert strategy that seeks to quietly spread their novel dogma until such a time when congregational take-overs can be effected. The distinctive traits of this discipling methodology are as follows.

1. It is alleged that this system represents an attractive, consistent method of interpretation. But there is no virtue in consistency, if one is consistently wrong!
2. Preterists criticize what they call “traditional” views of interpreting Bible prophecy. They suggest they have a new, exciting approach to the Scriptures - with a spiritual thrust. Of course the “new” is always intriguing to some.
3. The messengers of “realized eschatology” frequently are secretive in their approach. They select only the most promising candidates with whom to share their ideas. Eventually, then, the A.D. 70 theory will be woven subtly into classes, sermons, etc.
4. When ultimately confronted relative to their teachings and methods, they will argue that eschatological issues are merely a matter of opinion, and that divergent views - especially theirs - should be tolerated. This, of course, ignores plain biblical implications on these themes (cf. 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 Pet. 3:16). If church leaders fall for this ploy, more time is gained for the indoctrination of the entire congregation.

Conclusion

Wise church leaders will inform themselves relative to the theory of preteristic eschatology. If such ideas are discovered to be circulating within a local church, the proponents of such doctrines should be dealt with quickly and firmly. It is a serious matter.

 

[parousia70]

Hi Old Shepherd, and welcome!

It appears you arrived at the conversation late. I would be happy to bring you up to speed so you can render an informed response next time.

You asked:

”<I>Peter equates the destruction of "his" heavens and earth, with the "Destruction" of Noah's Heavens and earth.</I><B>” Where does Peter do this?</B>


First off,&nbsp;2 Peter 3:1-2, Peter makes it clear that he is merely reminding his readers of what was already spoken by the prophets. His epistle contains no brand new information that was not already revealed.

I will say that you may have mis applied the word "equates".&nbsp;Perhaps I should have used "Compares", for Peter indeed compares the destruction of Noah's world with the coming destruction of His world, and later equates it as well.

In that comaprason, we find that Noah's world was a different world than Peter's:

2Peter 3:5-7

"5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

We also Find next that Peter indeed "equates" the past destruction of Noah's World with the "at hand" destruction of His world:

2Peter 3:5-7 (again)

5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6&nbsp;by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.6 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here's&nbsp;where&nbsp;he "equates the 2".

We know from scripture and history, that The Flood was&nbsp;not a destruction of the Earth itself, but a Judgement of God against ungodly men, Likewise,&nbsp;Peter says the coming&nbsp; "Day of the Lord" is also exclusively for the "Judgement of Ungodly men".

You correctly cite that the "World" of Noah's day was not Destroyed, but perished, but Peter clearly states that&nbsp;Noah's "world" no longer exists,and He (Peter) was Living in a "different"&nbsp;earth that the one Noah lived in.&nbsp;If Peter is speaking about Planet earth here, He is wrong. Since Peter can't be wrong,&nbsp;and since we have a myriad of scriptures that testify God created the physical planet and universe to last forever,(Ps. 104:5; 145:13; Eccl. 1:4; Dan. 4:3,34; 7:14,18,27; Lk. 1:33; Eph. 3:21 to name but a few...).
&nbsp;The only conclusion the honest expositer can land on, is Peter must be speaking of a "Different" earth than the Physical Planet.

You said:

”<I>The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time.</I><B>” This is about the most flagrant incident of eisegesis I have seen in a long time. Please show us how you translate “<I>operational economy</I>” from the Greek here. Had God intended for Peter to say “<I>operational economy</I>” that is what he would have written. There is a perfectly acceptable Greek word for economy, in fact it is where we get our English word economy, oikonomia</B>

I am most happy to exegete this for you for your clarification.

As you must be aware, when it comes to interprating words and phrases in scripture, usage outweighs etymology.

As shown above, Peter can not be speaking of the physical universe &amp; &nbsp;Planet Earth, so we must search the scriptures to find out What "Heavens and Earth" he&nbsp;is referring to.

Again, what Heavens and Earth perished in Noah's Day? The Physical? no, scripture dosen't support that.&nbsp;Scripture confirms it was the ungodly principalities, governments and people. the "Operational economy" of the time. (Unless of course you can show from scripture how the "Operational Economy" of Noah's day did not perish in the flood)

Now&nbsp;Isaiah Comes in to play here. I'm glad you wish to comment on His words... are you an Hebraic scholar? that would be great!

Isaiah 51:16

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.' "

The time of this particular Planting of Heaven and founding of Earth ocourred after God parted the sea and delivered the hebrew people out of Egypt.

He brought them into the wilderness, gave the Law &amp;&nbsp;established their government. He&nbsp;called&nbsp;the formation of&nbsp;them into a covenant nation the "Planting of Heaven, Laying the foundation of earth".

We see support for this Idea of "nations principalities and peoples" being referred to a "Heavens and earth" elswhere in Isaiah as well.

Isaiah 13:1&nbsp; The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.&nbsp;

In this chapter God is talking about the judgement that is to fall upon Babylon. As I'm sure you know, the word burden is the Hebrew word massa', (mas-saw') an utterance, chiefly a doom. This introduction sets the stage for the subject matter in this chapter and if we forget this, our interpretations of Isaiah 13 can go just about anywhere our imagination wants to go. This is not an oracle against the universe or world but against the nation of Babylon.

Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9-13&nbsp; Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 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. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 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.

Now remember he is speaking about the destruction of Babylon but is sounds like world wide destruction. The terminology of a context cannot be expanded beyond the scope of the subject under discussion. The spectrum of language surely cannot go outside the land of Babylon. If you were a Babylonian and Babylon was destroyed would it seem like the world was destroyed? Yes! Your world would be destroyed.&nbsp;

&nbsp; Isaiah 13:17 "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it.

This is an historical event that took place in 539 BC. When the Medes destroyed Babylon the Babylonian world came to an end. This destruction is said in verse 6 to be from the Almighty, and the Medes constitute the means that God uses to accomplish this task. The physical heaven and earth were still in tact, but for Babylon they had collapsed. This is apocalyptic language. This is the way the Bible discusses the fall of a nation. This is obviously figurative language.

In Isaiah 24-27 we see the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar. He carries them away to captivity. Notice the language that he uses.

Isaiah 24:3-6 The land shall be entirely emptied and utterly plundered, For the LORD has spoken this word. 4 The earth mourns and fades away, The world languishes and fades away; The haughty people of the earth languish. 5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, Because they have transgressed the laws, Changed the ordinance, Broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, And few men are left.

&nbsp;Isaiah 24:19-20 The earth is violently broken, The earth is split open, The earth is shaken exceedingly. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, And shall totter like a hut; Its transgression shall be heavy upon it, And it will fall, and not rise again.

&nbsp;
Notice in these verses is how God refers to Israel as "the earth"? &nbsp;He says the earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly...the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again" (Verses 1,3,4,19,20)

This is apocalyptic language speaking of the destruction of the people of Israel.

In Isaiah 34 we have a description of the fall of Edom, notice the language that is used.&nbsp;

&nbsp; Isaiah 34:3-5 Also their slain shall be thrown out; Their stench shall rise from their corpses, And the mountains shall be melted with their blood. 4 All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree. 5 "For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, And on the people of My curse, for judgment.&nbsp;

&nbsp; This is Biblical language to describe the fall of a nation. It should be clear that it is not to be taken literally. Lets look at one other OT use of this language.&nbsp;

&nbsp; Nahum 1 The burden against Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elko****e. 2 God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies; 3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit the wicked. The LORD has His way In the whirlwind and in the storm, And the clouds are the dust of His feet. 4 He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, And dries up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither, And the flower of Lebanon wilts. 5 The mountains quake before Him, The hills melt, And the earth heaves at His presence, Yes, the world and all who dwell in it.

The subject of this judgement is Nineveh, not the physical world. This is the way God describes the fall of a nation. If this language describes the judgement of God on nations, why, when we come to the New Testament, do we make it be the destruction of the universe when&nbsp;There is no scriptural precdent for doing so???&nbsp; Opting for a "polar opposite" interpratation of this language than the set precident is scripturally unfounded.

Therefore, since&nbsp;scripture has&nbsp;established that the "Heaven and Earth" that was "about to be" (Mello) destroyed in Peter's Day could not have been the physical cosmos and planet, it must have been the "Heaven and Earth" God created after He parted the sea and brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. The "heaven and earth" that Peter and His audience were intimately familiar with. It was the "Heaven and earth" of Operational Biblical Judaism manifest in the Mosaic Law and Temple Complex.

I hope that was "exegetical" enough for ya OS!

Peace,

P70

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by Parousia
2Peter 3:5-7 (again)

5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.6 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here's where he "equates the 2".

We know from scripture and history, that The Flood was not a destruction of the Earth itself, but a Judgement of God against ungodly men, Likewise, Peter says the coming "Day of the Lord" is also exclusively for the "Judgement of Ungodly men".

You correctly cite that the "World" of Noah's day was not Destroyed, but perished, but Peter clearly states that Noah's "world" no longer exists, and He (Peter) was Living in a "different" earth that the one Noah lived in. If Peter is speaking about Planet earth here, He is wrong. Since Peter can't be wrong, and since we have a myriad of scriptures that testify God created the physical planet and universe to last forever,(Ps. 104:5; 145:13; Eccl. 1:4; Dan. 4:3,34; 7:14,18,27; Lk. 1:33; Eph. 3:21 to name but a few...).
The only conclusion the honest expositer can land on, is Peter must be speaking of a "Different" earth than the Physical Planet.

I’m still waiting for you to show me from the scriptures that anywhere states that God destroyed the “heaven and the earth” during the flood. First you agree with me, God did not destroy the world that it only perished. Then you say it no longer exists. Please note the definition of perished below and also compare your “eisegesis with another verse in 2 Peter bearing on this matter, 2 Peter 2:5. Note neither passage states that God “destroyed the heavens and the earth”. 2 Pet 2:5 does state that God brought “flood upon the world of the ungodly.”. He says absolutely nothing about the heavens.

• 
  2 Pet 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
  
  622 apoollumi apollumi ap-ol’-loo-mee
  from 575 and the base of 3639; TDNT - 1:394,67; v
  AV - perish 33, destroy 26, lose 22, be lost 5, lost 4, misc 2; 92
  1) to destroy
  1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
  1b) render useless
  1c) to kill
  1d) to declare that one must be put to death
  1e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
  1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
  2) to destroy
  2a) to lose

Peter only confirms that all living things perished but the earth remained. Peter then refers to the promise God made in Gen 9:11-12. God destroyed every living thing in the day of Noah but they “are now preserved” “Now” not “new”

• 
  by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.6 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word

Previously posted by OS: ”The "Heaven and earth" of the operational economy of the time.” This is about the most flagrant incident of eisegesis I have seen in a long time. Please show us how you translate “operational economy” from the Greek here. Had God intended for Peter to say “operational economy” that is what he would have written. There is a perfectly acceptable Greek word for economy, in fact it is where we get our English word economy,oikonomia

I am most happy to exegete this for you for your clarification.

As you must be aware, when it comes to interprating words and phrases in scripture, usage outweighs etymology.

I have been a Bible student for several decades please show me where this rule may be found. There is a rule I am familiar with that states, “If the plain sense, of a passage makes, good sense, it is nonsense to look for any other sense.” In other words, if you are challenging the meaning of a passage. e.g. 2 peter 3:5-7, and intend to deviate from the plain meaning of the text you must prove, not merely assume it has a metaphorical or allegorical meaning. You have not done so.

Isaiah 51:16
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.' "

This verse doesn’t say what you want it to either. I’ll check some of the others as I have time. So far you are 0 for 2. You might wish to review my other post also.

• 
  (LXX) Isaiah 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.
  
  (NIV) 16 I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand—I who set the heavens in place, who laid the foundations of the earth, and who say to Zion, ‘You are my people.’"

I hope that was not too "exegetical" for ya Parousia!

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by Parousia
In Isaiah 24-27 we see the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar. He carries them away to captivity. Notice the language that he uses.

Isaiah 24:3-6 The land shall be entirely emptied and utterly plundered, For the LORD has spoken this word. 4 The earth mourns and fades away, The world languishes and fades away; The haughty people of the earth languish. 5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, Because they have transgressed the laws, Changed the ordinance, Broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, And few men are left.

Isaiah 24:19-20 The earth is violently broken, The earth is split open, The earth is shaken exceedingly. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, And shall totter like a hut; Its transgression shall be heavy upon it, And it will fall, and not rise again.

Notice in these verses is how God refers to Israel as "the earth"? He says the earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly...the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again" (Verses 1,3,4,19,20)

You are wrong once again. Isaiah clearly makes a distinction between the “earth” and “Israel". Note particularly vss. 4-6, vs. 4 “the haughty people of the earth languish” Vs. 5 “the earth is defiled under its inhabitants” , Vs. 6 “the curse has “devoured” not “destroyed” the earth., “those who dwell in it [the earth] are desolate, etc.”

• 
  4

• The earth mourns and fades away, The world languishes and fades away; The haughty people of the earth languish.
  5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, Because they have transgressed the laws, Changed the ordinance, Broken the everlasting covenant.
  6 Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, And few men are left.

A quick scan of the other verses shows that you are misquoting and mistranslating them as well. What you do not have is any verse in the Old Testament, which clearly shows God destroying the heavens and the earth and thus no verses which can be used as proof texts to show that the N.T. passages do not speak of a literal destruction of the heaven and the earth.

I would suggest you read the history of the early church and from that history you will find that your preterism is heresy.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
I’m still waiting for you to show me from the scriptures that anywhere states that God destroyed the “heaven and the earth” during the flood. First you agree with me, God did not destroy the world that it only perished. Then you say it no longer exists. Please note the definition of perished below and also compare your “eisegesis with another verse in 2 Peter bearing on this matter, 2 Peter 2:5. Note neither passage states that God “destroyed the heavens and the earth”. 2 Pet 2:5 does state that God brought “flood upon the world of the ungodly.”. He says absolutely nothing about the heavens.

• 
  2 Pet 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;[/b

• 
  
  Since you are so hung up on this word "Destroyed"&nbsp;why don't you show where the NT teaches that&nbsp;the Physical earth and physical Heavens will be destroyed by God.
  
  Alos, you have failed to show scriptural warrant for interprating "Heavens being dissolved" of 2 Peter in polar opposite fashion to "Heavens being dissolved" of Isaiah 34.
  
  Nice try though

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
A quick scan of the other verses shows that you are misquoting and mistranslating them as well. What you do not have is any verse in the Old Testament, which clearly shows God destroying the heavens and the earth and thus no verses which can be used as proof texts to show that the N.T. passages do not speak of a literal destruction of the heaven and the earth.&nbsp;

Again, you have failed to show where the NT speaks of the destruction of Planet earth and outer space.

Contrary to your asertion, after the flood, to show His infinite mercy, God made a promise to never again destroy every living thing.

I believe Him. You clearly do not.

(BTW, "As I have done" referrs to every living thing, not to water)

I would suggest you read the history of the early church and from that history you will find that your preterism is heresy.

I would sugest you stick to scripture instead of the fallible interpratations of men to determine what "Heresey" is and what it isn't.

Perhaps you'd like to attempt a refutation of my thread "AD66-70, the day the son of man was revealed"

No one has even tried yet. maybe your just the man for the Job?

 

[parousia70]

Old Shepheard
Just to clarify,
Isaiah 51:16 say exactly what I contend, and not what the "futurist" translations have it say.

From the YLT:
"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.'

His forming of Israel in the wilderness was an act He accomplished TO Plant the Heavens and TO found the earth.

Clearly, in the translations you provided, a literal rendering of the text would be damaging to the translators eschatology, so they chose to change the meaning of the literal text to conform to their eschatology, instead of bringing their eschatology in line with the literal text.

Sad but true.

P70

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70
Since you are so hung up on this word "Destroyed"&nbsp;why don't you show where the NT teaches that&nbsp;the Physical earth and physical Heavens will be destroyed by God.

Alos, you have failed to show scriptural warrant for interprating "Heavens being dissolved" of 2 Peter in polar opposite fashion to "Heavens being dissolved" of Isaiah 34.

Nice try though

First I challenged your assertions you have not proven any of them yet. And backed up my challenge with scripture. Before you go challenging me to prove anything make sure you have answered all of my points. You haven't even made a scratch. I said I will respond as I have time. Why don't you two fellows quit patting each other on the back like a couple of juveniles and answer what is already on the board? As for your other post just a quick question why did you stop quoting Matthew and Luke, before you got to the angels, trumpets, lightning flashing from east to west, Jesus coming in the clouds,etc? And why did you quote Luke out of order?

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70
Old Shepheard
Just to clarify,
Isaiah 51:16 say exactly what I contend, and not what the "futurist" translations have it say.

From the YLT:
"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.'

His forming of Israel in the wilderness was an act He accomplished TO Plant the Heavens and TO found the earth.

Clearly, in the translations you provided, a literal rendering of the text would be damaging to the translators eschatology, so they chose to change the meaning of the literal text to conform to their eschatology, instead of bringing their eschatology in line with the literal text.

Sad but true.

P70

I am glad that you have a moden translation which supports your presuppositions. That is very nice but do you have any idea what LXX, which I quoted, means? LXX stands for Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation of the O.T. into Greek 250 years BC. Please tell me some more of this nonsense about "translators eschatology." I'm sure it is you, and others who believe as you do, who are changing the literal meaning of the scriptures to conform to your eschatology, NOT the Jews. They actually spoke the language. Do you?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
First I challenged your assertions you have not proven any of them yet. And backed up my challenge with scripture. Before you go challenging me to prove anything make sure you have answered all of my points. You haven't even made a scratch. I said I will respond as I have time. Why don't you two fellows quit patting each other on the back like a couple of juveniles and answer what is already on the board? As for your other post just a quick question why did you stop quoting Matthew and Luke, before you got to the angels, trumpets, lightning flashing from east to west, Jesus coming in the clouds,etc? And why did you quote Luke out of order?

OS, In the examples of the several past OT "day of the Lord" events, Jehovah is often described as "riding a cloud" personally and visibly, when the reality was, human armies were the temporal means He used to accomplish the task. All the OT "day of the Lord" events were completely fulfilled even though no one "saw" Jehovah personally, in the way the prophet described the "coming". A visible God riding a cloud was never necessary for the event to be fulfilled, even though that is exactly how the event was prophesied to come to pass.

Why you continue to opt for a polar opposite interpratation of the same language in the NT with no scriptural precident or warrant to do so, indeed in the very face of the proof to the contrary, escapes me.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
LXX stands for Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation of the O.T. into Greek 250 years BC.

&nbsp;

However you provided an "English" translation.

Is it your contention&nbsp;the LXX&nbsp;was translated into English in 250BC?

If not, then when and by whom?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd


Posted By P70:As you must be aware, when it comes to interprating words and phrases in scripture, usage outweighs etymology.

Reply by OS:I have been a Bible student for several decades please show me where this rule may be found.

I'll do better than that OS my friend, I'll cite some examples where you yourself use that rule.

John 2:19

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Temple: Greek "Naos" in classical Greek it is used of the sanctuary or cell of the temple, where the image of gold was placed which is distinguished from the whole enclosure. also means&nbsp;any heathen temple or shrine.

I'm sure you agree that Jesus Usage of "Naos" in this passage determines it's etymology in this passage, not the other way around.&nbsp;

How about&nbsp; 2 Corinthians 5:1

"For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"

House: Greek "Oikia" defined as "a house,an inhabited edifice, a dwelling, property, wealth, goods"

Tent: Greek "Skenos" defined simply as&nbsp;a "a tabernacle, a tent"

Paul's usage of "House and Tent" clearly determine their etymology in this verse, not vis-versa.

This is scratching the surface, and all I have time&nbsp;to do tonight, but I would be Glad to explore this in depth if you still disagree.

G-Nite,

P70

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70
OS, In the examples of the several past OT "day of the Lord" events, Jehovah is often described as "riding a cloud" personally and visibly, when the reality was, human armies were the temporal means He used to accomplish the task. All the OT "day of the Lord" events were completely fulfilled even though no one "saw" Jehovah personally, in the way the prophet described the "coming". A visible God riding a cloud was never necessary for the event to be fulfilled, even though that is exactly how the event was prophesied to come to pass.

Why you continue to opt for a polar opposite interpratation of the same language in the NT with no scriptural precident or warrant to do so, indeed in the very face of the proof to the contrary, escapes me.

Then I will explain it very carefully, because you simply post assumptions and assertions without showing any proof. When you do post what you consider to be proof it can be shown to be absolutely false. See next post re: Isaiah 34. And when your "proof texts" are proven to be false you ignore it and move on to something else.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70
I'll do better than that OS my friend, I'll cite some examples where you yourself use that rule.

John 2:19

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Temple: Greek "Naos" in classical Greek it is used of the sanctuary or cell of the temple, where the image of gold was placed which is distinguished from the whole enclosure. also means&nbsp;any heathen temple or shrine.

I'm sure you agree that Jesus Usage of "Naos" in this passage determines it's etymology in this passage, not the other way around.&nbsp;

How about&nbsp; 2 Corinthians 5:1

"For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"

House: Greek "Oikia" defined as "a house,an inhabited edifice, a dwelling, property, wealth, goods"

Tent: Greek "Skenos" defined simply as&nbsp;a "a tabernacle, a tent"

Paul's usage of "House and Tent" clearly determine their etymology in this verse, not vis-versa.

This is scratching the surface, and all I have time&nbsp;to do tonight, but I would be Glad to explore this in depth if you still disagree.

G-Nite, P70

Keep scratching. In the temple example, the text continues by saying Jesus meant the temple of his body. And when you do come back be prepared to explain why in these examples it is abundantly clear from the context what is meant. However, in your previous examples there is no such contextual clarification, merely a presumption on your part.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by parousia70
&nbsp;

However you provided an "English" translation.

Is it your contention&nbsp;the LXX&nbsp;was translated into English in 250BC?

If not, then when and by whom?

I have posted my documentation. If you challenge it then it is your responsibility to produce credible evidence to the contrary. Can you do that or just make disagreeable noises? I can post the Greek, can you read it?

(LXX) Isaiah 51:16 qhsw touV logouV mou eiV to stoma sou kai upo thn skian thV ceiroV mou skepasw se en h esthsa ton ouranon kai eqemeliwsa thn ghn kai erei siwn laoV mou ei su

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
See next post re: Isaiah 34.

Where would that post be?
Keep trying, increase the size of your font all you want, you still have yet to justify interprating a specific phrase one way in the OT, while interprating the same phrase in polar opposite fashion in the NT.