Author Topic: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal  (Read 8442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2012, 12:39:28 PM »
Thanks for that, thethinker!  I haven't had a good laugh for a couple of weeks.  You really should look after that hot temper of yours, though; it seems to be interfering with you analysis of Scripture:


EdwardGoodie is guilty of what he accuses you Futurists. He is interpreting the word "signify" out of the context of audience relevance. He is violating the chief Preterist principle of Audience Relevance. For instance, when Jesus "If I be lifted up" they had no idea that He was speaking about His death or even death at all. His speech was "signified" and He could have been talking about going to the Father for all they knew.


Nope.  Not at all.  While I am definitely a proponent of using the hermeneutic of audience relevance to understand the historicity of the text, Understanding the meaning of a word is not at all dependent on whether audience relevance is used.  In fact, when determining the biblical definitions of words, we should consult ALL Scripture (at varying points in time, might I add) to see if there are multiple usages of that one word.  If there are multiple usages, then it is the context (and other similar contexts at varying points in time) that helps to determine more accurately its meaning.

I am appalled by thethinker's belief that the meaning of a word ("signified") is based upon people's POSSIBLE misunderstanding of an associated topic (the death).  That is pure fallacy.

There are so many things wrong with his statement:

1.  He is mistaken that the disciples did not know what Jesus meant by being lifted up.  Crucifixion was quite COMMON in those days.  Thethinker must believe the Jews were ignorant of this fact.

2.  The disciples never questioned the "lifted up" part.  They only questioned the Son of man part:

John 12:33-34 -  This he said, signifying what death he should die.  
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?


3.  Jesus uses the same thing to "Signify" Peter's death.  Was Jesus using SYMBOLS to indicate the manner of Peter's death?  HARDLY!

John 21:18-19 - Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  
19  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me
.    

Of course, thethinker is just going to say that Peter has now learned what it meant to be lifted up.

But that does not matter.  It is not the understanding of being lifted up that is the issue here or in the other texts.  It is the usage of "signified."  Does Jesus use SYMBOLS to describe Peter's death at his lifting up?  No, it is an accurate description of those on the cross (crucifixion).    Of course, thethinker will probably deny this too...

The issue is whether Jesus was using SYMBOLS to convey his lifting up.

We are merely to believe thethinker solely based on his opinion.  No Scriptural support whatsoever is provided to lend credence to his view...that happens a lot around here.

There is no doubt that Revelation uses symbols.  It also uses many figures, metaphors, and idioms as well.  "Signified" is probably better translated as "indicated" or "revealed" just as it is in the only five other texts in the NT.

EdwardGoodie tells YOU to put yourself in the place of the original audience and fails to do the very same thing here.


While I do insist that people exercise an audience relevance hermeneutic when attempting to exegete a particular passage, there is no justification whatsoever that this hermeneutic technique be applied to the definition of words.  Even thethinker should realize the mistake he has made, for he, himself, will readily admit that the word "earth" does not mean planet in both the Old and the New Testaments - which span several generations.

The same is true of Agabus's prediction of the great famine. Luke tells us that Agabus "signified" that there would be a great famine. But the people did not know that his speech was about a famine when he said it.  We know that he was speaking about a famine because Luke tells us AFTER THE FACT.


Again, the issue is not about whether the people did or did not understand.  I don't even know where he gets the ludicrous idea that the people didn't understand in the first place!

The issue is (once again) whether Agabus used SYMBOLS to talk about the famine.  Let's look at the passage:

Act 11:28  And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Act 11:29  Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:


Remember, thethinker said "the people did not know that his speech was about a famine when he said it."

So, I will ask that thethinker respond to this very simple question from the text.  I will ask but there will not be any response because the answer is really quite simple for those who actually "think."

The question is why then did the disciples IMMEDIATELY determine to send RELIEF unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea?  Seems like they understood quite well, don't you forum folks agree?

EdwardGoodie is alo guilty of relying solely on Strong's which he has warned YOU not to do.

Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon says that the word "signify" (semaino) means "to indicate by a sign" (page 365).


While I do agree that taking Strong's definitions and running with them solely based on his understanding is to be ill-advised, I hope that the folks here can readily see that I did not use Strong's definition at all.  I simply used the James Strong NUMBER to represent the Greek word "signified."  It seems that thethinker would agree that the other verses are the same Greek word and the same Strong's number because he spent much time (but not much thinking) in attempting to use them.

I am also surprised that thethinker would hang his hat on a futurist's interpretation (Moulton) while at the same time accusing me of doing the same with James Strong - even though I did not use his definition - it was only used to find other Scriptures that used the same Greek word.  Perhaps thethinker can explain why he accepts Moulton over Scripture.

I repeat, when Jesus said, "If I be lifted up" they had no idea that He was speaking about His death. John tells us AFTER THE FACT that Jesus was speaking about His death.

And when Agabus "signified"  the great famine which was to come he did NOT indicate a famine. Luke tells us AFTER THE FACT that Agabus was speaking about a famine.

I am shocked that my Preterist friend has made such a MAJOR logical blunder.


You can repeat all you want, but the issue was whether Jesus or Agabus used SYMBOLS to explain/indicate/reveal what they said.  AND NOT ONE DID.

The major blunder is yours.  And please, I am not your friend.  You have made that explicitly clear (and without the use of symbols as well).

Checkmate on EdwardGoodie



You must have fallen asleep in that game.  I was playing black!




« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 12:54:11 PM by EdwardGoodie »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Mod Alrighty
  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10660
  • Manna: 313
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2012, 01:21:48 PM »
If it's part of a vision, it isn't literal.

If it's the explanation of the vision, then it's literal, unless it prefaces itself with a statement saying "this is a puzzle for you to figure out."

Jarrod

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2012, 03:44:33 PM »
EdwardGoodie said:
Quote
I am appalled by thethinker's belief that the meaning of a word ("signified") is based upon people's POSSIBLE misunderstanding of an associated topic (the death).  That is pure fallacy.

I did NOT say that the word "signified" was based upon people's POSSIBLE understanding of an associated topic (the death). I simply said that they had no idea that Jesus was speaking about his death. The words "If I be lifted up" would not have made them think of death at all. After that He said that He would "draw all men to Himself." How would He draw all men to Himself if He was "dead?" They could not known that Jesus was speaking about His death.

Quote
There are so many things wrong with his statement:

1.  He is mistaken that the disciples did not know what Jesus meant by being lifted up.  Crucifixion was quite COMMON in those days.  Thethinker must believe the Jews were ignorant of this fact.

Crucifixion was indeed common in those days. But it was NOT heard of to call it being "lifted up."

Quote
2.  The disciples never questioned the "lifted up" part.  They only questioned the Son of man part:

John 12:33-34 -  This he said, signifying what death he should die.  
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

The word "forever" is not the best translation. They literally said, "Messiah would remain into the age so how can you say He must be lifted up"?

Their expression "into the age" meant that they thought that the Messiah's reign would be temporal. They could not reconcile this with His claim that He would be "lifted up," that is,  that He would reign forever.

 Jesus had earlier used the expression "lifted up" to indicate His eternal nature (John 3:14). So Jesus was using an expresssion which He had earlier used to express His eternal nature and employed it to speak about his death.

Quote
3.  Jesus uses the same thing to "Signify" Peter's death.  Was Jesus using SYMBOLS to indicate the manner of Peter's death?  HARDLY!

John 21:18-19 - Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  
19  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
 

That's funny, Jesus did NOT say , "You shall be lifted up or crucified upsidedown."

Quote
Does Jesus use SYMBOLS to describe Peter's death at his lifting up?  No, it is an accurate description of those on the cross (crucifixion).

Then why didn't Jesus say that Peter would be "lifted up" too but upsidedown? Jesus said NOTHING about Peter being crucified in any way. It appears as if Jesus was saying that Peter would die from old age.

EdwardGoodie is reading Peter's crucifixion into the text having the advantage of AFTER THE FACT tradition to call on. All of a sudden he is employing Futurists hermeneutics because he is angry with me for defending Raggthyme.

Quote
There is no doubt that Revelation uses symbols.  It also uses many figures, metaphors, and idioms as well.  "Signified" is probably better translated as "indicated" or "revealed" just as it is in the only five other texts in the NT.

First, EdwardGoodie admits that the Revelation uses symbols and figures and metaphors. Great!

Second, the Greek "semaino" (signified) is translated "signified" consistently in the KJV and NKJV.

Quote
While I do insist that people exercise an audience relevance hermeneutic when attempting to exegete a particular passage, there is no justification whatsoever that this hermeneutic technique be applied to the definition of words.

We know that Jesus used the expression "lifted up" in John 12 to speak of His death because we have AFTER THE FACT apostolic interpretation. The original audience did not. They thought that Jesus was speaking about His eternal nature (3:14).

Quote
Again, the issue is not about whether the people did or did not understand.  I don't even know where he gets the ludicrous idea that the people didn't understand in the first place!


Answer to undrelined portion: Agabus was an end times prophet which required that one have the gift of interpretation! What Bible is EdwardGoodie reading?

Every prophecy had to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation!

Quote
The question is why then did the disciples IMMEDIATELY determine to send RELIEF unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea?  Seems like they understood quite well, don't you forum folks agree?

Ahhhh! Did you all see how EdwardGoodie inserted the word "immediately" into the narrative? He is pulling a Linker on me. The language requires only that the relief was sent when the famine occurred.

thinker
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 05:32:40 PM by thethinker »

inthenow

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2012, 05:02:29 PM »
thethinker:
The word "signify" means to communicate by symbols.

By their saying it many times they think they will be believed.

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20  He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


Nothing symbolic there but literal, plain and clear
.


First, you have not yet answered the irrefutable example I gave in my op. How can Christ literally judge while sitting on a white cloud and riding a horse at the same time? Only one of these visions can be true literally. Both can be true symbolically but only one can be true literally.

Until you deal with this my definition of "signified" stands unrefuted.

Second, the plagues in the Revelation are symbolic for the eternal judgment of God. How could the plagues be added to the disobedient of ALL generations if they are literal? If they are literal they could be added only to the disobedient of the generation which is alive when they are poured out.

But if they symbolize God's eternal judgment, then they may be added to the disobedient of ALL generations.

Check mate my friend!



thinker

I did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 05:41:55 PM by inthenow »

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2012, 05:21:06 PM »
Inthenow said:
Quote
quoteI did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.

You did NOT explain it well because you did not demonstrate it. When I say "deal with it" I mean attempt to PROVE it.

The one sitting on the white cloud and thrusting His sickle IS the Son of Man. This is the judgment. So your view that the judgment will take place from an earthly throne has no basis in the Revelation. And the white horse vision occurs "in heaven." This is also the judgment.

Try again.

thinker

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2012, 05:21:06 PM »



inthenow

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2012, 05:37:14 PM »
Inthenow said:
Quote
quoteI did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.

You did NOT explain it well because you did not demonstrate it. When I say "deal with it" I mean attempt to PROVE it.

The one sitting on the white cloud and thrusting His sickle IS the Son of Man. This is the judgment. So your view that the judgment will take place from an earthly throne has no basis in the Revelation. And the white horse vision occurs "in heaven." This is also the judgment.

Try again.

thinker
I did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2012, 05:46:36 PM »
Inthenow said:
Quote
quoteI did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.

You did NOT explain it well because you did not demonstrate it. When I say "deal with it" I mean attempt to PROVE it.

The one sitting on the white cloud and thrusting His sickle IS the Son of Man. This is the judgment. So your view that the judgment will take place from an earthly throne has no basis in the Revelation. And the white horse vision occurs "in heaven." This is also the judgment.

Try again.

thinker

thinker
I did explain and with scripture the diffrence between coming on clouds and coming on the white horse, and i explained it well.
You don' read opposing posts thoroughly, just a glance through I would say, and I've said it before.
And you can find the post if you wanted to.

You're talking about coming on the clouds and I am talking about Christ's SITTING on a white cloud and thrusting His sickle FROM that cloud. This is the judgment. The white horse vision occurs IN HEAVEN. This is also the judgment. Both cannot be literally true. It's that simple.

I am talking apples and you are talking oranges.

thinker


Offline fenton

  • Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Manna: 83
  • Gender: Male
  • Prayer Warrior
    • View Profile
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2012, 05:49:32 PM »


I am talking apples and you are talking oranges.

thinker




there both good for ya!   ::yummy::

inthenow

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2012, 06:27:23 PM »
daq:
TO ALL,

EdwardGoodie is guilty of what he accuses you Futurists.



Why to all, have you got your large audience that you seek?

There's a bit of futurist in me and I agree with him there.

Joh 12:33  This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Edward Goodie is correct, signifying in the NT is literal, meaning in that verse "indicating" and "makeing known"

"This he said, making known what death he should die".

Its so clear one could think, only the blind could not see it.

inthenow

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2012, 06:32:02 PM »


I am talking apples and you are talking oranges.

thinker




there both good for ya!   ::yummy::
Funny joke Fenton, but I firmly believe preterism is not good for ya!  ::smile::

Denying that Christ is yet to come, and all the blessings we long for etc.

Offline fenton

  • Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Manna: 83
  • Gender: Male
  • Prayer Warrior
    • View Profile
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2012, 06:41:27 PM »


I am talking apples and you are talking oranges.

thinker




there both good for ya!   ::yummy::
Funny joke Fenton, but I firmly believe preterism is not good for ya!  ::smile::

Denying that Christ is yet to come, and all the blessings we long for etc.

i agree preterism is not good, i would never make it in this world if it was not for the belief that He is going to return for me or that i am going to meet Him when i die,
 thought about suicide many times but i always remember His love for me and it WILL get better

Offline fenton

  • Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Manna: 83
  • Gender: Male
  • Prayer Warrior
    • View Profile
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2012, 06:47:58 PM »
daq:
TO ALL,

EdwardGoodie is guilty of what he accuses you Futurists.



Why to all, have you got your large audience that you seek?

There's a bit of futurist in me and I agree with him there.

Joh 12:33  This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Edward Goodie is correct, signifying in the NT is literal, meaning in that verse "indicating" and "makeing known"

"This he said, making known what death he should die".

Its so clear one could think, only the blind could not see it.



i believe that was thethinker that said that, not daq

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2012, 07:03:21 PM »

i agree preterism is not good, i would never make it in this world if it was not for the belief that He is going to return for me or that i am going to meet Him when i die,
 thought about suicide many times but i always remember His love for me and it WILL get better

fenton,
Jesus did not say "In this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I'm coming to take you out of this world." (In fact, He prayed exactly the opposite.)

But what did He say? "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." Who is he that overcomes the world but he that believes that Jesus is the Christ? We have overcome, we are in Christ, forgiven and set free from the sin that so easily besets us, if we will walk in the Spirit. This world is a fallen place with lots of pain, but God uses every heartache for His own purposes and I firmly believe nothing comes to us that does not first pass through His hands. I understand the desire to escape it.. but that's not a biblical concept of faithful endurance. I believe the crown comes after we have passed from this life to the next, and the greater the affliction and our submission to God in it all, the greater the glory and reward in heaven.

What gives you the idea that we do not have a hope? I can't speak for others here but I long for that day that I will see Him face to face. And knowing that at any moment my own soul may be required of me makes me live in reverence and anticipation of that day. A person doesn't need to believe in another coming of Christ to have this hope in them. imo

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2012, 07:09:13 PM »
daq:
TO ALL,

EdwardGoodie is guilty of what he accuses you Futurists.



Why to all, have you got your large audience that you seek?

There's a bit of futurist in me and I agree with him there.

Joh 12:33  This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Edward Goodie is correct, signifying in the NT is literal, meaning in that verse "indicating" and "makeing known"

"This he said, making known what death he should die".

Its so clear one could think, only the blind could not see it.


Inthenow,

I said that and not daq.

They did not know that Jesus was speaking about His crucifixion. They did not know that Jesus used the expression "lifted up" to speak about crucifixion. We know this AFTER THE FACT because John told us this is what He meant.

Jesus used "lifted up" as a symbol of his death when before it had reference to His glorification.

thinker

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Hey Futurists! Proof that the Revelation is NOT Literal
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2012, 07:14:53 PM »


I am talking apples and you are talking oranges.

thinker




there both good for ya!   ::yummy::
Funny joke Fenton, but I firmly believe preterism is not good for ya!  ::smile::

Denying that Christ is yet to come, and all the blessings we long for etc.

i agree preterism is not good, i would never make it in this world if it was not for the belief that He is going to return for me or that i am going to meet Him when i die,
 thought about suicide many times but i always remember His love for me and it WILL get better

Fenton,

Preterists believe in the hope of immortality. We believe that we are going to meet Him when we "die." This is the "rapture." We will be "caught up" to meet Him in our body from heaven (2 Cor. 4:16-5:5). We reject that the body of flesh will have a part in it.

thinker