Jersey Girl wrote:I think I stated in the OP (or maybe not) that one need not be a Bible believer to engage in thought on this topic. It's not a witnessing thread, it's (if you will) a study of a piece of literature.
Now...if you're still interested in the thread...
Define "world" as in "end of the world"
And tell me why you extracted a portion of scripture that begins with Jesus standing outside of the Temple, telling the disciples that the area would be destroyed....
then decide that the rest of the scene has to do with some future event?
Well, I am a literalist first. The term World is what it is - in our modern world, it refers to the entire planet.
Regardless, I suppose to engage in this topic without an understanding of the original Greek (and I am unfamiliar with it), I'm just as way off as the next English only reader.
No, no....no no no....If you are a literalist as you say, why are you using a modern day definition for the "world" in discussion of an ancient text?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:I think I stated in the OP (or maybe not) that one need not be a Bible believer to engage in thought on this topic. It's not a witnessing thread, it's (if you will) a study of a piece of literature.
Now...if you're still interested in the thread...
Define "world" as in "end of the world"
And tell me why you extracted a portion of scripture that begins with Jesus standing outside of the Temple, telling the disciples that the area would be destroyed....
then decide that the rest of the scene has to do with some future event?
Well, I am a literalist first. The term World is what it is - in our modern world, it refers to the entire planet.
Regardless, I suppose to engage in this topic without an understanding of the original Greek (and I am unfamiliar with it), I'm just as way off as the next English only reader.
No, no....no no no....If you are a literalist as you say, why are you using a modern day definition for the "world" in discussion of an ancient text?
my point exactly. Without an understanding of their languages (and other cultural insights) we're just doing lots of speculating based on the world we are familiar with.
so I will gracefully place one foot on a banana peel and bow out.
Jersey Girl wrote:I think I stated in the OP (or maybe not) that one need not be a Bible believer to engage in thought on this topic. It's not a witnessing thread, it's (if you will) a study of a piece of literature.
Now...if you're still interested in the thread...
Define "world" as in "end of the world"
And tell me why you extracted a portion of scripture that begins with Jesus standing outside of the Temple, telling the disciples that the area would be destroyed....
then decide that the rest of the scene has to do with some future event?
Well, I am a literalist first. The term World is what it is - in our modern world, it refers to the entire planet.
Regardless, I suppose to engage in this topic without an understanding of the original Greek (and I am unfamiliar with it), I'm just as way off as the next English only reader.
No, no....no no no....If you are a literalist as you say, why are you using a modern day definition for the "world" in discussion of an ancient text?
Jersey Girl stated: No, no....no no no....If you are a literalist as you say, why are you using a modern day definition for the "world" in discussion of an ancient text?
You have heard of translations and interpretation, I presume. Multiple translations and multiple interpretations make “literalist” rather a moot issue.
One can use any “definition” one wishes of “world.”
One can make-it-up-as-he goes. Thus we can accommodate a significant number of those who may perceive themselves as “literalists.”
Jersey Girl stated:
No, no....no no no....If you are a literalist as you say, why are you using a modern day definition for the "world" in discussion of an ancient text?
JAK
You have heard of translations and interpretation, I presume. Multiple translations and multiple interpretations make “literalist” rather a moot issue.
One can use any “definition” one wishes of “world.”
One can make-it-up-as-he goes. Thus we can accommodate a significant number of those who may perceive themselves as “literalists.”
I'm just trying to keep it in the same time period in which it was written! As or making up as he goes...she has also been known to do that from time to time...you read the OP right?
Jersey Girl
;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jason Bourne wrote:Please clarify. It seems the Revelation you are referring to is Matthew 24 and not Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation.
Sorry, I didn't see this one, Jason.
Matthew 24 begins with a prophecy regarding the destruction of the 2nd Temple
Revelation (what I'm attempting to forward) is a warning to the same generation of believers as Jesus spoke to in Matthew 24.
This idea is not new, Jason. It's preterism. There is also futurism and partial preterism as approaches to the Revelation.
What I'm essentially saying, is forget what you've been taught. Open the Bible, read it for what it says, place it in the time frame in which is was written...
and how do you see it?
I understand better now. Yes I think Matthew 24 can be read as a waring to that genreation of Jews and that the Temple destruction in about 70 AD could be considered fulfillment. I know if one reads the JST of Matthew 24 he splits it into 2 parts. Part one seems to be for the Jews then and focuses on events that happened shrorlty after Jesus died and part two would be yet to occur. You might want to read it just for fun sake.
Jason Bourne wrote:Please clarify. It seems the Revelation you are referring to is Matthew 24 and not Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation.
Sorry, I didn't see this one, Jason.
Matthew 24 begins with a prophecy regarding the destruction of the 2nd Temple
Revelation (what I'm attempting to forward) is a warning to the same generation of believers as Jesus spoke to in Matthew 24.
This idea is not new, Jason. It's preterism. There is also futurism and partial preterism as approaches to the Revelation.
What I'm essentially saying, is forget what you've been taught. Open the Bible, read it for what it says, place it in the time frame in which is was written...
and how do you see it?
I understand better now. Yes I think Matthew 24 can be read as a waring to that genreation of Jews and that the Temple destruction in about 70 AD could be considered fulfillment. I know if one reads the JST of Matthew 24 he splits it into 2 parts. Part one seems to be for the Jews then and focuses on events that happened shrorlty after Jesus died and part two would be yet to occur. You might want to read it just for fun sake.
Is it online, Jason, or could you post it here? It's possible that the KJV lumps things up when it shouldn't. So far as I know, Jesus didn't number his comments by chapter and verse!
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Is it online, Jason, or could you post it here? It's possible that the KJV lumps things up when it shouldn't. So far as I know, Jesus didn't number his comments by chapter and verse!
Having already heard this discussion before, I know where you are coming from and so will say after thinking things through that you could possibly be right.
Imwashingmypirate wrote:Having already heard this discussion before, I know where you are coming from and so will say after thinking things through that you could possibly be right.
; )
Awe man your gonnae know who I am now. : D
Hmmm...if that was for me...yup, I think I know! Welcome! It's not that I like the Second Coming as a topic, I posted it on more than one board to get a better sampling of reactions/responses to my assertions.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I didn't want anyone to know who I was because I figured you guys were already on here and if you didn't know who I was then I could discuss things better but I can't seem to pretend I am not myself.
Anyway thanks for welcoming me.
This topic is something I put on my to do list and forgot about it.
I believe that all the books of the New Testament were written at around the same time. And I do not believe there is any chronological order. But I did think Revelations was about these times.
I think the New Testament was written after Jesus' ministry on the earth, not during. And so not all of it is necesarly exact because the chances of remembering everything are slim. Also I think not all the right books were chosen to be added to the Bible but rather the books the priests wanted to add. To suit themselves really.