The time “is near” or “many days from now”?

[claninja]

Some day, when the rapture/resurrection takes place, you will be able to ask James himself what he was thinking. I think he was thinking about the sudden appearance factor of Jesus's coming (for the rapture/resurrection) and act accordingly.

In James 5:8, “Has drawn near” = perfect tense in the indicative mood.

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).

The evidence is for you to prove since you are making the claim about what futurists have stated for 2000 years, not for me.

Hal Lindsey definitely checked those 3 boxes and made a failed prediction. So your argument is not true.

Same Jesus who called John up to heaven is the same Jesus who spoke in Matthew 24:32-33. Why are you arguing, because Jesus has not returned obviously?

Last time I checked, Matthew is not Revelation.

John, IN REVELATION, was told to not seal up the vision FOR the time is near.

John was given the revelation to show events that must quickly/soon occur and that the time was near.

John was NOT told to seal up the vision for it concerns many days from now, like Daniel.

 

[claninja]

What the OP is arguing in regards to comparing Daniel 8 to Revelation, this is basically irrelevant for the following reasons.

Daniel is completely relevant. Both men Are given symbolic visions. Both are instructed about sealing the vision and when the vision will occur. Futurists will often claim the ridiculous argument that “is near is in Gods time”. If that is true why didn’t God tell Daniel the time is near?

daniel 8:26 26The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

Revelation 22:10 10And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Daniel was given a vision, that he could not understand, about the future, and was told to “seal it up for it concerns many days from now”.

John on the other hand was told “NOT to seal it up for the time is near”.


IF the time was actually not near, as the futurist argues, why wasnt John told what Daniel was told?

 

[DavidPT]

IF the time was actually not near, as the futurist argues, why wasnt John told what Daniel was told?

I don't know what category I fall into? While I do believe much of Revelation involves future events, I don't believe all of Revelation does. I for sure don't remotely see it making sense, for example, that any or all of the vials of wrath have been poured out yet. Nor do I see it making sense, for another example, that the 2Ws in Revelation 11, that the beast has already made war with them, already overcame them, then killed them. Then those on the earth making merry after their assumed demise, then they rising from the dead and then ascending into heaven. It doesn't matter what all of that might actually look like when these things are fulfilled, the point still is, nothing in the past, in any sense, remotely fits anything like this. Surely, they ascending into heaven after rising from the dead has to be involving a literal event. What in the past could possibly explain that? Nothing, as in zero.


Revelation 10:3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.


How do you apply this passage to what you are arguing over all? What is this passage revealing, the fact verse 4 says---Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not?

 

[claninja]

I don't know what category I fall into? While I do believe much of Revelation involves future events, I don't believe all of Revelation does. I for sure don't remotely see it making sense, for example, that any or all of the vials of wrath have been poured out yet. Nor do I see it making sense, for another example, that the 2Ws in Revelation 11, that the beast has already made war with them, already overcame them, then killed them. Then those on the earth making merry after their assumed demise, then they rising from the dead and then ascending into heaven. It doesn't matter what all of that might actually look like when these things are fulfilled, the point still is, nothing in the past, in any sense, remotely fits anything like this. Surely, they ascending into heaven after rising from the dead has to be involving a literal event. What in the past could possibly explain that? Nothing, as in zero.

John was told the time “is near”. John was NOT told the vision concerns the distant future, like Daniel was.

In regards to the vials of wrath: According to Luke, apostate first century Israel would face the “wrath of God” and that these days of vengeance would “fulfill all that is written”. According to Matthew and Luke, apostate Israel would be charged with all the righteous blood shed. In revelation 16, Babylon faces the 7 vials of wrath, and God is praised for judging it due the spilled the blood of the prophets and saints.

So IF revelation was written pre-70ad AND IF we use scripture to interpret scripture, then interpreting the vials of wrath as a symbolic vision for Israel’s destruction and wrath of God to “fulfill all that is written” during those days of vengeance would have been an event literally “near” in time to John.

However, IF revelation was written 2 decades post 70ad AND has nothing to do with 70ad, resulting in not using scripture to interpret scripture because the events are then completely unrelated, then John being told the “time is near” makes no sense. Imho, This also results in:

1.) claiming “near” doesn’t mean near in a literal sense but In “God’s time”, despite God being able to tell the prophets, like Daniel, when visions are for the distant future thus rendering that argument untenable.

2.) hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations as to when and what events revelation is talking about. if they are not about 70ad, and we can’t use scripture to interpret scripture, then let the guessing games begin. And we can see over the last 2,000 years there have been plenty of guesses.

How do you apply this passage to what you are arguing over all? What is this passage revealing, the fact verse 4 says---Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not?

I think what he heard was too sacred to write. Similar to this:

2 Corinthians 12:4was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.

My argument involves only things that were written. For example, daniel was permitted to write chapter 8 despite having to seal it up. John was not permitted to write down what he heard from the 7 thunders.

 

[DavidPT]

2.) hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations as to when and what events revelation is talking about. if they are not about 70ad, and we can’t use scripture to interpret scripture, then let the guessing games begin. And we can see over the last 2,000 years there have been plenty of guesses.

Maybe one of the reasons for all of these guessing games, as you call it, thus far, is not because they actually apply to 70 AD instead, but is because they don't apply to 70 AD, therefore, it is only reasonable that someone would try to make sense out of these interpretations some other way. One thing we have to keep in mind here is that this age is not over yet. How then can you insist, in the event that you do, that every single interpretation will also be proved wrong in the future when the future is not even here yet? One can't always base what is going to happen in the future based on what has already happened in the past. The future, meaning tomorrow, the next day, a year from now, 10 years from now, so on and so on.

I think what he heard was too sacred to write. Similar to this:

2 Corinthians 12:4was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.

[/B]

If that's what you got out of that, either your translation is vastly different than mine, or the way I read something and the way you read something, is not even remotely close.

Revelation 10:3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Where does this give the impression John may have initially been afraid to write what he saw when the text already states that he was about to write what he saw until he was interrupted by a voice forbidding him to write what he saw? Had that voice not said any of that, should we then assume John would still not have written what he saw? And what about, for example, when John saw ppl getting cast into the LOF? Why did that not scare him, thus he not writing what he saw, but what these 7 thunders uttered, this scared him to the point that he refused to write what he saw?

 

[claninja]

Maybe one of the reasons for all of these guessing games, as you call it, thus far, is not because they actually apply to 70 AD instead, but is because they don't apply to 70 AD, therefore, it is only reasonable that someone would try to make sense out of these interpretations some other way. One thing we have to keep in mind here is that this age is not over yet. How then can you insist, in the event that you do, that every single interpretation will also be proved wrong in the future when the future is not even here yet? One can't always base what is going to happen in the future based on what has already happened in the past. The future, meaning tomorrow, the next day, a year from now, 10 years from now, so on and so on.

Right, if it applies mainly to 70ad, there’s no need to guess or make false predictions. For example, We can then use scripture to interpret scripture, such as both Babylon and apostate, 1st century Israel being charged with all the righteous blood, to determine what John was seeing.

However, If it doesn’t apply to 70ad, then yes, you will have hundreds of wrong and false interpretations put forth, and such has been seen for the last couple thousand years. additionally one can’t then use the hermeneutic of scripture to interpret scripture. This will also result in one arguing that John being told the time is “near” doesn’t mean “near”, despite God being able to tell such prophets as Daniel that the time concerns the distant future.

Where does this give the impression John may have initially been afraid to write what he saw when the text already states that he was about to write what he saw until he was interrupted by a voice forbidding him to write what he saw? Had that voice not said any of that, should we then assume John would still not have written what he saw? And what about, for example, when John saw ppl getting cast into the LOF? Why did that not scare him, thus he not writing what he saw, but what these 7 thunders uttered, this scared him to the point that he refused to write what he saw?

I guess I don’t know what you are talking about. Where did I say John was scared to write down the seven thunders?

Revelation 10 says John was not told not to write down what he heard. In otherwords, he wasn’t permitted to write down what he heard in order to share that with his audience.

This is similar to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12: that the man who was caught up to heaven, who heard wondrous things, was not permitted to share it.

 

[parousia70]

I guess I don’t know what you are talking about. Where did I say John was scared to write down the seven thunders?

My Guess is he read "Too Sacred" as "Too Scared" - My eyes play tricks like that on me sometimes too....

 

[claninja]

My Guess is he read "Too Sacred" as "Too Scared" - My eyes play tricks like that on me sometimes too....

That Makes sense. When he said my translation “must be vastly different”, I was really confused.

 

[DavidPT]

I guess I don’t know what you are talking about. Where did I say John was scared to write down the seven thunders?

I'm sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought you said scared not sacred. I never even realized that I did that, nor would I even realize it now, had you not pointed this out and that I then rechecked what you said. Apparently, my eyes were playing tricks on me since I didn't do that knowingly. Once again, sorry about that.

 

[claninja]

I'm sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought you said scared not sacred. I never even realized that I did that, nor would I even realize it now, had you not pointed this out and that I then rechecked what you said. Apparently, my eyes were playing tricks on me since I didn't do that knowingly. Once again, sorry about that.

No worries!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Revelation 10:3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.


How do you apply this passage to what you are arguing over all? What is this passage revealing, the fact verse 4 says---Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not?

You have picked the one passage (Revelation 10:3-4) we can be absolutely certain that speaks about prophetic events that would be in the distant future to John's days compared to the AD 66-70 cataclysmic events that were then "at hand". Revelation 10:3-4 is a subset of isolated prophecies for the far distant future that were "sealed up" - sitting in the middle of a set of prophesies that were NOT sealed up, because those unsealed prophesies were presently going to unfold in John's days.

Claninja is correct to make the comparison between the (future to Daniel) "sealed up" prophesies which indicated "many days" before they were to be fulfilled, and the UNSEALED prophesies of Revelation that were then "at hand" and beginning to unfold for John's immediate audience.

God Himself defined what "at hand" means for a prophetic event back in Ezekiel 12:21-28. We don't need to guess. God made it very clear indeed that a prophecy that was "at hand" meant that it would NOT be "prolonged" into "times that are far off", but that they would be fulfilled "IN YOUR DAYS" to the ones hearing that prophecy for the first time. God would not only speak the words of the prophecy, but He would also in the same time frame "perform" that prophecy for the ones to whom it was first delivered.

The beginning of Revelation (Revelation 1:3) starts with this "at hand" description of its prophecies, and it also concludes with the very same "at hand" description (Revelation 22:10). In between those "unsealed" prophecies written about in Revelation 22:10, we have that singular subset of "sealed up" prophecies for John's far distant future, which can apply to us today and times future to us.