"I ask then why do people say Israel must go through the Tribulation?" Jeremiah 30.6. paraphrased.

[Cameron143]

It is not a deflection.
If no man can number it, why are you asking me to number it?

But what it says is that it is uncountable.
That literally means no 1:1 and onto function from that set of people to {1, 2, 3, 4, ... N} exists.

My point is, when God says it isn't possible to count, He's not telling us that in order to try counting it. that's not the same as saying "infinity" - infinity can be either countable or not, and uncountably many can be either infinite or not.

You asked an unanswerable question, so i focused on what He did tell us. no bijection. He told us math.

My point isn't to get an exact number. My point it's a very large number.
Many people believe the millennial reign is soon. There have been as best as I can figure between 30 and 60 billion people come into the world. Most don't even appear to have been redeemed. If there are only basically 1000 years left before the eternal estate where people are not given in marriage and hence no procreation, where are all these people coming from?

 

[Cameron143]

Another naysayer in spite of "a (the) thousand years" being repeated SIX TIMES in seven verses. Which means that there will be a literal, visible, tangible, physical and spiritual reign of Christ on earth for ONE THOUSAND YEARS immediately after He returns "with power and great glory". The Greek chilia ete is repeated over and over again so that no one should miss the significance of this event.

So now the question arises: "How do Christians go off the rails so easily?" And the answer is because THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE GOD. To believe God is to take His Word at face value without any argument.

God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. How many hills does God own?

 

[Nehemiah6]

God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. How many hills does God own?

THIS IS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. GOOD WORK!

 

[Nehemiah6]

im not sure I understand - are we almost 2,000 years into the 1,000 year millennium, now, then?

That would be shocking to a mathematician. But common sense does not prevail.

 

[Cameron143]

THIS IS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. GOOD WORK!

If you would answer, the reasoning would become apparent. Perhaps it already has and that explains your response.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The Greek chilia ete is repeated over and over again so that no one should miss the significance of this event.

Key word being "YEARS [etē ]".

What I mean is, that every place in Scripture where the word "YEARS" is used along with whatever number ("______ years"), it always means THAT MANY "years" (the writer wants the reader to picture in their minds / think "______ YEARS" [THAT MANY *years*]).






[In this way, the "cattle" verse, Psalm 50:10, is not appropriately comparable]

 

[cv5]

If you would answer, the reasoning would become apparent. Perhaps it already has and that explains your response.

You just got schooled by TDW. But will you accept it and make the necessary corrections to your addled, ludicrous and absurd eschatological views?

Denying Israels necessary existence and prophecied redemption as well as the glorious Second Coming? Sounds like a rumor that Satan would be spreading around me.....

 

[cv5]

Denying Israels necessary existence and prophecied redemption as well as the glorious Second Coming?

"Sounds like a rumor that Satan would be spreading around to me...."

 

[GaryA]

God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. How many hills does God own?

You cannot properly answer the question based [strictly] on the information given in the statement - which states that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills - it says nothing about God owning any hills.

(A lesson in 'logic'.)

Of course, we know that God owns everything - so, in reality, He owns all of the hills everywhere. (And, all of the cattle too!)

Psalms 50:

10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

People like to argue about what the word [translated] 'thousand' means here - whether it is 'exactly 1000' or 'some large indefinite number'.

The word [itself] means 'exactly 1000'. And, it always does - without exception. Where it may become nonliteral, if at all, is strictly a matter of context - because, it is the [understanding of the] usage of language that "renders" something to be nonliteral in a context where such may be understood.

You have to look at the words themselves, the sentence structure grammar, the usage of language (based on culture, era, etc.), and the context of the verse/passage - the collective combination of which I like to call the 'grammar of the language'. In other words, it is not just about words and sentence structure grammar - other things also affect the comprehensive meaning.

And, when considering the comprehensive meaning of something in scripture, you also have to look at both the original and translated languages. For example, when reading the KJV, you have to consider the use of language of the original language (e.g. - Greek, Hebrew) AND the use of language of the 'Middle English' language of the KJV also.

Now - I am not saying that no one can get anything out of the Bible without doing extensive study into the original language(s), etc. - in most cases/verses/passages (in/of a good translation), the translation itself takes care of most of that due to the knowlege, understanding, and diligence of the translators who translated it. What I am saying is - if you are going to take an in-depth look at some word or phrase in scripture - sometimes, you have to look at several things together to obtain the proper meaning.

And, these are the types of mistakes that are very often made that result in erroneous interpretations of scripture...

I believe the most common mistake that is made is when someone assumes scripture says something that it does not actually say.

It is very easy to do - you have to be very careful...

So - please be very careful...

 

[GaryA]

Key word being "YEARS [etē ]".

What I mean is, that every place in Scripture where the word "YEARS" is used along with whatever number ("______ years"), it always means THAT MANY "years" (the writer wants the reader to picture in their minds / think "______ YEARS" [THAT MANY *years*]).






[In this way, the "cattle" verse, Psalm 50:10, is not appropriately comparable]

I can agree that - in the context of your post - "not appropriately comparable" may be applied to a verse that is talking about a thousand hills rather than a thousand years; however, I have to totally disagree with your assessment of a built-in emotionally-packed meaning wherever '<number> years' is found.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

however, I have to totally disagree with your assessment of a built-in emotionally-packed meaning wherever '<number> years' is found.

I think I recall a convo you and I were involved in, together, where I had also mentioned the same concept regarding the word "MONTHS" ("_____[number] months" always meaning, THAT MANY *months*).




Now, in this thread, I'd like for you to supply an example from Scripture, where you believe the writer did not want the reader to picture in their minds / think: "______ YEARS"... (picture in their minds THAT MANY years; as opposed to picturing / thinking "VAST AMOUNT of years").

Thanks. = )

 

[GaryA]

Perhaps later - I have other fish to fry at the moment - and, a limited time to do it. However, what I am saying is that the "meaning" you are trying to apply to every case is not built-into the 'grammar of the language' - and, certainly not the word itself. I believe that it is [simply] your own impression/interpretation.

 

[GaryA]

I am not sure where you got this information but it is incorrect.

JOHN GILL'S COMMENTARY
Some think it was written in the times of Claudius Caesar (h), before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar. But the more commonly received opinion is, that he had this vision there, at the latter end of Domitian's reign (i) by whom he was there banished, about the year 95, or 96.

Just about any commentator whom I have read agrees with this.

Has it occurred to you yet that:

~ Just because someone wrote the words 'But the more commonly received opinion is' does not mean that it was actually true at the time it was written?

~ The most popular opinion is not always necessarily true?

~ You might be listening to the wrong commentators?

Truth is greater than opinion. So, don't get too "caught up" or "hung up" on 'opinion' - especially the 'opinion' of 'forerunner' commentators who have "set the tone" of what many believe and follow today - or it will be difficult for you to escape their error.

The Bible is truth; what 'commentators' have to say is 'opinion'. Don't ever forget that. Because, most of them are wrong about something...

And, it is not that they are intentional liars - many of them "mean well" - but, have simply been taught error - which they then spread to other folks.

Be careful, brother, of the popular 'commentators' of today. There is much error...

Before anyone has an opportunity to point what I have said here back at/to me - let me say...

Any of you that know me well enough know that I will not hesitate to suggest to everyone on CC (and, have said it several times before now) that 'every post is [just] an opinion' - including mine - and should be thought about/of and treated as such. Which means:

~ Take it (any particular post) for what it is worth - but - don't ever forget that it is [just] someone's opinion.

~ Don't get bent out of shape over what someone says in a post. (Unless, perhaps, it is downright unavoidably blasphemous or some equivalent to that.)

~ Learn how to respond to posts you do not agree with in a way that will edify the brother or sister you believe to be in error - with love and patience and not scathing denigration of the brother/sister.

All of this should be self-evident; however, what I was saying above is intended as a warning concerning many of the popular commentators of today.

 

[GaryA]

No. The Temple of Rev 11 is obviously future.

No. The Temple of Revelation 11 is not 'obviously' future - you just want it to be so much that you refuse to consider any other possibility...

-future end time reconstruction (a prophetic fact that is being planned in the present day in real time and is quite inevitable)

Show me this "prophetic fact" in scripture.

 

[GaryA]

Before you correct someone, you might try to understand what it is they are saying.

Many on here need to learn this - way too many "jump to conclusions" way too quickly...

They don't take the time to read what you said so as to be sure that they understand what you really actually meant. Instead, they 'skim' your post for 'reaction' words (psychologically speaking) and then post according to their reaction to your post.

Or, at least, so it seems sometimes...

 

[GaryA]

Literally 100% wrong 100% of the time (reminds me of @GaryA in that regard!)

I don't know whether to say:












or












But, in either case, there are 100 - it seems appropriate...

 

[GaryA]

The statements by Ireneaus have been misinterpreted to promote a futurist view of eschatology.

it is not as though he is the only source giving the 90's date of Revelation, but...




i invite you to read the full chapter of Iraneus and see that the context bears out the plain reading.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm

Iraneus without any doubt holds a 'futurist' view of Revelation - as did literally the entire church until, after the reformation, a Jesuit invented preterism in order to defend the papacy from interpretations that cast it as the harlot riding the beast.

so apparently even Iraneus 'misinterpreted himself'?

It matters not - Iraneus is not 'credible' in my opinion.

 

[GaryA]

Yes Jesus did return circa 70 AD.

In terms of all End Times prophecy, how do you separate a Second Coming (70 A.D.) from a Third Coming (future)?

 

[GaryA]

Fitting your understanding of prophecy to current events is the surest way to go wrong.

I can certainly agree with this - it happens a lot - many are quick to look for ways to wrap scripture around modern events.

Using the OT language and how it was employed explains prophecy.

However, be careful of this - sometimes the 'OT language' is more literal than you think. As an example of what I am saying here, all of the verses listed in the table on this web page are referring to the very same exact event rather than many different similar events:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Second_Coming.html

 

[GaryA]

That is a future event and even Christ called it a future event. He prophesied of the destruction of the temple which was standing in His presence, then spoke about the Abomination of Desolation which would stand in a future temple in Jerusalem. So how do people get such BIZARRE and unbiblical ideas?

From making BIZARRE unbiblical interpretations of scripture. And, with certainty, a big-time boat-load of them have been made with regard to the Matthew 24:15 / Mark 13:14 verses in the Olivet Discourse.