Did Some Illumination of Scripture only appear 1800 years after the Revelation?

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Rev 8: 7-12:
The first four of seven trumpet judgements are sounded:
1st Trumpet) vs. 7: The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
2nd Trumpet) vs. 8-9: And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
3rd Trumpet) vs. 10-11: And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
4th Trumpet) vs. 12-13: And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise. And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
These four trumpets deal in destructions of thirds. Trees and grass probably including vegetation in northern South America and southern North America, I imagine. A mountain burning with fire, which I suspect is a meteor hits in what I suspect will be the gulf of Mexico; killing sea life and the ships in this same area. The falling star can be another meteor or the same burning mountain listed in the prior verse; makes the rivers, lakes, and ground waters in these same areas polluting them with wormwood. A cloud of dust and debris will make the sun, moon, and stars to dim by a third expanding in the earth's atmosphere to cover the world, making crops all over to be less productive, which in turn will lead to the price of food to cost a days wages.
The reason, I suspect, that this occurs where it does is because it can't happen in Russia as the King of the North will be taken out when they attack Israel during the 2nd half of the Great Tribulation. Nor can it occur in Africa as North Africa will be taken out when they attact Israel shortly after Russia does. Europe and Asia must meet in the battle of Armageddon so they also will not be in the impact zone(s).
1 Pet 4: 17:
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
These first four trumpet judgements that, IMO, occur in the sourthern US and northern S. America become an act of mercy by the Lord because many of those that die from this judgement, will die before they have time to "fall away," from the Lord as per 1 Tim 4: 1:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
And in 2 Thes 2: 3:
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Let me add here that the difference between stumbling and falling away is that when someone stumbles he gets back up, but when he falls away, 2 Pet 2: 20-21:
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

The ten nations of the antichrist will be Europe, backed by the euro-dollar...

Thanks for explaining the burning mountain. It sounds plausible, including the location of the Earth that gets impacted the most. It could be the reason why the Bible doesn't mention anything specific about the US. When I read what you wrote, it reminded me of this:

Asteroid 2016 HO3 - Earth's Constant Companion

Scientist think this asteroid has been following our Earth's path for a century already but was just discovered in 2016. If something else hits it or it hits something else while it's this close to us, then the result can easily be that burning mountain falling to the Earth from the sky.


🧇

 

[Gideon300]

It has been understood in the church that there is "revelation", that which Holy Spirit inspired men to write, and there is "illumination" where the Holy Spirit guides believers into understanding what He revealed correctly. That is the meaning of 2 Pet. 1:20-21. We cannot interpret God's word apart from the Holy Spirit who inspired it, He who revealed it.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2Pe 1:20-21 NRSVue
or
"Above all else, however, remember that none of us can explain by ourselves a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2Pe 1:20-21 GNB

My question is this: Did the Holy Spirit not illuminate what He inspired until the mid 19th century? Was the church in the dark about an important passage in the NT until the mid-1800s?

"So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." Mat 24:33-34 NRSVue
or
"In the same way, when you see all these things, you may know that the end is near, at the very door. Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:33-34 REB)

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the language makes clear that the generation to whom Jesus was speaking were to see "all these things" he had been describing. It takes some real scripture twisting to make the passage mean otherwise.

Therefore, can anyone quote from men of God out of the past who thought and taught that Matthew 24:1-35 was describing some 7-year tribulation period still future to us, which followed a rapture of the church? I can only conclude that the teaching that the Mt. Olivet discourse is discribing what Dispensationalists claim, is pure nonsense! Here is my challenge. There is a web site with over 100 commentaries and Greek language studies of the NT online where we can access beliefs of the church in the past. Find one prior to 100-150 years ago that taught the crazy notion being taught in our day.

https://www.studylight.org/

Did the Holy Spirit only illuminate Matthew 24, Mark 13 andn Luke 21 to His people in the last 100-150 years or so? I deny that the truth of God in this passage only became clear since Darby and Scofield.

Every generation of believers has believed that it is the last. Guess what. We are still here.

Being dogmatic about the last days is a great way to make a fool of yourself. God has hidden some things. Very often, understanding only comes after the event. For example, who expected Israel to be reconstituted as a nation in Martin Luther's time? The crusades were at least in part an attempt to fulfill scripture, albeit in the wrong way.

The problem with interpreting Matthew 24 is that Jesus is answering two different questions. Those questions related firstly to the destruction of the Temple and possibly to the destruction of Jerusalem itself. Most Christians fled Jerusalem when the Romans besieged it. They remembered what Jesus had said.

The second question relates to Jesus' return at the end of the age. Personally, I have seen those lying signs and wonders operating courtesy of the so-called Toronto Blessing. However, the TB spirit (demonic) was also present in 1906 with the so called Azusa St revival.

Countless Christians have fallen for the deception. Yes, the elect can be deceived.

It should be sobering and humbling to know that great men of God can misinterpret God's word. Too many rely on their own intellect and knowledge. It's OK to say, "I don't know".

When it comes to the tribulation, I have my own thoughts but I rarely share them. I'm old enough to expect either not to be here or to not survive long if it happens in my lifetime. If we are raptured before, fine, we will leave the world to its totally deserved fate. If not, God's grace is sufficient.

I suggest that believers stay close to Jesus. Fear and worry drain us of spiritual strength and enable Satan to oppress us. Know God's promises and trust them 100%.

As an aside, there are many Christians in the world who suffer terribly right now. They know what tribulation is right now.

 

[NightTwister]

Gnosticism for fun and prophet!

 

[Ethan1942]

Yes, I am "mighty sure" that the interpretation to which I hold is the correct one. Any commentator or interpreter can be wrong, no matter how "old" their writings.


Let's add verse 19 to the conversation (here in the NIV):

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Peter states that the "prophetic message" is something to be relied upon. We can't very well rely on something we don't understand. In contrast, we can rely on scriptural prophecy "because" it isn't merely human interpretation.


The wording "no prophecy... is a matter of one's own interpretation" is itself an interpretation... which results in a catch-22 situation.

If such were a valid interpretation, it would declare for all time that readers of Scripture are not permitted (or not capable) of interpreting prophecy. That means every single preacher, teacher, writer, etc. as well as the vast majority of "regular" Christians who ever attempted or will attempt to interpret prophecies in the Bible is actually violating this principle. That doesn't make sense!

I'm also certain that such a view of this passage has been used abusively to shut down disagreement over interpretation. "This verse says prophecy is not for private interpretation! You must accept MY interpretation of all prophecy!" The view I hold avoids such carnal silliness.


Yes, it is certainly possible for misguided people to misinterpret Scripture. It is also possible for well-meaning Christian people to misinterpret Scripture. If we take this note to its logical end, every person who ever misinterpreted a verse of Scripture is "a heretic". Shall we go there? I hope not.


Which we should be doing in all our study of Scripture, not just the prophetic parts. Here's the problem: even the most sensitive among us have difficulty determining (in the moment) whether an idea comes from God or from our own heads. We are given the tools to examine ideas and determine, on the basis of available evidence (of Scripture and experience), whether the idea is good or not good, and we give credit to God for any good ideas. Did God give me this idea? Ultimately, yes. Did He endow me with the intelligence to examine available interpretations and determine which makes the best sense to me? Also, yes.

Poole's note in its entirety makes good sense, but it still leaves us with the awkward sense that individual Christians should not think for themselves. Again, my view on verse 21 avoids this whole complication, and in my private interpretation, my view makes better "common sense" than yours.

Dino, in my Bible studies, I do use various translations and try to keep in mind the approach or philosophy behind the translating. In my studies, I find that the modern 'evangelical' translations tend to translate according to their theological viewpoint. So, I do stay with the 'standard' translations. I'll give a couple examples. On my computer study Bibles, I only have 2 evangelical translations, the ESV and the NET Bible. I notice that on Ex. 21:22, the standard translations stay with the historical interpretation, "miscarriage". The ESV reads "her children come out" and the NET2.1 reads "her child is born prematurely". The NASB is a clear example of such evangelical bias when the 1977NASB read "miscarriage" but then when the battle over abortion became hot, the 1995NASB changed to "born prematurely".

I believe in Creationism as to the orign of the soul, as most of the Reformed did in years past, and I believe ensoulment happens at viability. That was the legal understanding at the founding of America. I believe Biblically that is the most supportable position.

Let me give an illustration on the verse in question and show the translations down through the standard versions and then the evangelical versions.
KJV, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" from 1611/1769
RV, "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation"
ASV, "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation"
RSV, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"
NRSV "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"
NRSVue "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" up to 2021

Remember, the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV
ESV "no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation"
NET2.1 "No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination"
NIV "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things."

There are a couple of other passages where the evangelical slant becomes clear, 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10. After the very misleading 1946 RSV translated malakos & arsenokoites as "homosexuals", the standard translations dropped that modern wording and concept; but the evangelical translations worked feverishly to put some version of "homosexuals" back into 1 Cor. 6:9 especially. This is a passage I have spent a lot of time on and it is clear that the KJV, RV & ASV have the translation correct, where all modern translations take an entirely different approach. Using the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, to approach the time frame of the KJV, RV & ASV, the passage is quite clear.

One last comment as to translations on 2 Pet. 1:20. I have the NA28 interlinear NT by Tyndale with the NRSV and its literal gloss is the same as the standard translations down through history. I also have the NA28 interlinear NT by Crossway with the ESV and the literal gloss on this one follows the evangelical bias as well.

For me it all comes down to, Whose scholarship and objectivity do I trust? I do not trust the evangelical translations on these topics. I'll close with the following:

From an article found in the 1952 RSV:
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contadictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
https://ia903104.us.archive.org/13/items/introductiontore00inte/introductiontore00inte.pdf

 

[Ethan1942]

It has always amazed me how those who boast of their sticking to the literal words of scripture, are so very selective in what they choose to see as literal or figurative. As to the book of Revelation, I am forced to take the words that are clearly meant to be literal, just as it reads.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Rev 1:1-3 NRSVAue

then at the end of the book -

"And he said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.'” Rev 22:6 NRSVAue

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

Whether the book is dated 68 AD or 96 AD, the bulk of the prophecy cannot be projected to our future in 2024!

I will agree that the first prophetic section seems to coincide with Matthew 24, but that took place in 70 AD and the lead up to that destruction of the temple and city. So, this leads me to accept the pre-70 AD dating, and I am a partial preterist.

 

[Sipsey]

It has always amazed me how those who boast of their sticking to the literal words of scripture, are so very selective in what they choose to see as literal or figurative. As to the book of Revelation, I am forced to take the words that are clearly meant to be literal, just as it reads.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Rev 1:1-3 NRSVAue

then at the end of the book -

"And he said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.'” Rev 22:6 NRSVAue

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

Whether the book is dated 68 AD or 96 AD, the bulk of the prophecy cannot be projected to our future in 2024!

I will agree that the first prophetic section seems to coincide with Matthew 24, but that took place in 70 AD and the lead up to that destruction of the temple and city. So, this leads me to accept the pre-70 AD dating, and I am a partial preterist.

It is good to “Study to show thyself approved.” I venture to say that many here have been forced to change their understanding of some aspects of Scripture as weeks turn into month, months into years, and then decades. When I was first called “Dogmatic” many years ago, I had to look up the term. The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know. I’m content with the plainer messages the Scripture. I find the book of Revelation very interesting. I’m told about 80% of it comes directly from OT teachings, so without a firm understanding of its nuanced meanings, it make little sense. The biggest book I own is a diatribe on the many views and interpretations of what Revelation may mean. It is all interesting, but it is hard to be prepared for end times with ones nose constantly in a book.

 

[Dino246]

Dino, in my Bible studies, I do use various translations and try to keep in mind the approach or philosophy behind the translating. In my studies, I find that the modern 'evangelical' translations tend to translate according to their theological viewpoint. So, I do stay with the 'standard' translations. I'll give a couple examples. On my computer study Bibles, I only have 2 evangelical translations, the ESV and the NET Bible. I notice that on Ex. 21:22, the standard translations stay with the historical interpretation, "miscarriage". The ESV reads "her children come out" and the NET2.1 reads "her child is born prematurely". The NASB is a clear example of such evangelical bias when the 1977NASB read "miscarriage" but then when the battle over abortion became hot, the 1995NASB changed to "born prematurely".

I believe in Creationism as to the orign of the soul, as most of the Reformed did in years past, and I believe ensoulment happens at viability. That was the legal understanding at the founding of America. I believe Biblically that is the most supportable position.

Let me give an illustration on the verse in question and show the translations down through the standard versions and then the evangelical versions.
KJV, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" from 1611/1769
RV, "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation"
ASV, "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation"
RSV, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"
NRSV "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"
NRSVue "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" up to 2021

Remember, the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV
ESV "no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation"
NET2.1 "No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination"
NIV "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things."

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

To the translations you cited, there is no problem with reading any of them the way I do, especially when you understand that "of" and "from" are close synonyms. "No prophecy of Scripture is from private interpretation". That the translators didn't use "from" is probably an artifact of usage in the 16th century resulting in the KJV, which influenced all later translations until well into the 20th century. Again, "from" avoids the misuse of the passage and the awkward catch-22 of effectively disallowing any interpretation of prophecy.

So I remain very confident that the interpretation to which I hold is the correct one.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It has always amazed me how those who boast of their sticking to the literal words of scripture, are so very selective in what they choose to see as literal or figurative. As to the book of Revelation, I am forced to take the words that are clearly meant to be literal, just as it reads.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Rev 1:1-3 NRSVAue

then at the end of the book -

"And he said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.'” Rev 22:6 NRSVAue

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

Whether the book is dated 68 AD or 96 AD, the bulk of the prophecy cannot be projected to our future in 2024!

I will agree that the first prophetic section seems to coincide with Matthew 24, but that took place in 70 AD and the lead up to that destruction of the temple and city. So, this leads me to accept the pre-70 AD dating, and I am a partial preterist.

Revelation IMO spans nearly 2 millennia (3 actually). It starts with Christ receiving, unsealing and setting in motion God's plan for the ages, which then proceeds to unfold until the end. The expression "must soon take place" can also be interpreted as "must happen swiftly", which can either be read as soon, or swiftly once certain things begin to unfold

 

[WilliamL]

"So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." Mat 24:33-34 NRSVue
or
"In the same way, when you see all these things, you may know that the end is near, at the very door. Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:33-34 REB)

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the language makes clear that the generation to whom Jesus was speaking were to see "all these things" he had been describing. It takes some real scripture twisting to make the passage mean otherwise.

"this generation": so, which generation? that is the question.

The Greek term in question is houtos:

οὗτος hoûtos, hoo'-tos; from the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):—he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

So the question comes down to what is the antecedent for "this/that/the same" generation. In the context, the generation referred to is the one that will "see all these things" -- they are the ones. So, see what things? This is what they will see:

Matthew 24:30 "...the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Now, can you make the historical case that the generation of the first century AD "saw" all those things? I think not. But you are welcome to present your historical evidence to prove your case.

For my part, I will believe, until it is proven otherwise, that these "seen" things are yet to occur.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

It has always amazed me how those who boast of their sticking to the literal words of scripture, are so very selective in what they choose to see as literal or figurative. As to the book of Revelation, I am forced to take the words that are clearly meant to be literal, just as it reads.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Rev 1:1-3 NRSVAue

then at the end of the book -

"And he said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.'” Rev 22:6 NRSVAue

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

Whether the book is dated 68 AD or 96 AD, the bulk of the prophecy cannot be projected to our future in 2024!

I will agree that the first prophetic section seems to coincide with Matthew 24, but that took place in 70 AD and the lead up to that destruction of the temple and city. So, this leads me to accept the pre-70 AD dating, and I am a partial preterist.

Revelation 1:1 (22:6) says (instead): "...to SHEW unto his servants things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"



So "Rev1:1 [22:6] / 1:19c / 4:1" is saying "what-things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (not "soon [or other adverbs]") is NOT speaking of things that would immediateLY [adverb] begin to transpire and unfold upon the earth (as the Preterists and Historicists [and even Amillennialists] are saying); It is talking about what must take place "AFTER" the things "WHICH ARE" (chpts 2-3), i.e. what-things are PROPHESIED to take place "AFTER THESE" (after "the things WHICH ARE"--which themselves are NOT SAID OF THEM that they are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" like the other [section] is, see);


--"the things WHICH ARE" (chpts 2-3) has the repeated phrase (7x... once for EACH of the seven churchES),
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches "
https://www.blueletterbible.org/sea...e+spirit+saith+unto+the&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

... which means that each of those seven letters was intended for more (churchES) than just that one church named in each section (of these 7)... IOW, intended for "churchES" throughout "the things WHICH ARE" span of time (lengthy);



--If one carefully examines verse 1 [and 22:6] closely (esp. if you see the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" used here [or "WITH SPEED [NOUN]" same idea]), one can begin to discern the DIFFERENCE between what THESE verses are speaking about, versus what verse 3 [and 22:7,9,10] is specifically saying / speaking to.










[BTW, I agree with what @WilliamL said, in the post before mine, about what Matt24:33-34's "this generation" is speaking of... ; One could also examine the way in which Luke 21:32 is placed AFTER what is spoken of in v.24a,b (items "of VERY-LENGTHY-DURATION") so that verse 32's "this generation shall not pass away TILL ALL shall have taken place" MUST NECESSARILY *INCLUDE* v.24's items (including its OWN "UNTIL" matter! [COMP. Rev11:2b]); Also studying the SEQUENCE ISSUES of the Olivet Discourse is helpful in this matter]

 

[glf]

Revelation 1:1 (22:6) says (instead): "...to SHEW unto his servants things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]

So "Rev1:1 [22:6] / 1:19c / 4:1" is saying "what-things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (not "soon [or other adverbs]") is NOT speaking of things that would immediateLY [adverb] begin to transpire and unfold upon the earth (as the Preterists and Historicists [and even Amillennialists] are saying); It is talking about what must take place "AFTER" the things "WHICH ARE" (chpts 2-3), i.e. what-things are PROPHESIED to take place "AFTER THESE" (after "the things WHICH ARE"--which themselves are NOT SAID OF THEM that they are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" like the other [section] is, see);
--"the things WHICH ARE" (chpts 2-3) has the repeated phrase (7x... once for EACH of the seven churchES),
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches "
https://www.blueletterbible.org/sea...e+spirit+saith+unto+the&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

... which means that each of those seven letters was intended for more (churchES) than just that one church named in each section (of these 7)... IOW, intended for "churchES" throughout "the things WHICH ARE" span of time (lengthy);

--If one carefully examines verse 1 [and 22:6] closely (esp. if you see the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" used here [or "WITH SPEED [NOUN]" same idea]), one can begin to discern the DIFFERENCE between what THESE verses are speaking about, versus what verse 3 [and 22:7,9,10] is specifically saying / speaking to.

[BTW, I agree with what @WilliamL said, in the post before mine, about what Matt24:33-34's "this generation" is speaking of... ; One could also examine the way in which Luke 21:32 is placed AFTER what is spoken of in v.24a,b (items "of VERY-LENGTHY-DURATION") so that verse 32's "this generation shall not pass away TILL ALL shall have taken place" MUST NECESSARILY *INCLUDE* v.24's items (including its OWN "UNTIL" matter! [COMP. Rev11:2b]); Also studying the SEQUENCE ISSUES of the Olivet Discourse is helpful in this matter]

One of the things mentioned in Lu 21 is Jesus' prophecy stating that Jerusalem will be trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled vs 24. No other generation except for our can say that the times of the gentiles be fulfilled. And of the generation that sees the things mentioned in Lu 21 beginning at verse 24 we're told in Lu 21: 28:
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
which is listed right after Lu 21:27:
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

 

[posthuman]

I was at the gas station, the young man pumped the gas while I paid. I came out to my truck and couldn't find the gas cap. I always set it on the bumper or roof or on the pump. It was nowhere. And then I looked at the the little gas cap cover, apparently there's a little slot in the cover to stow the cap while fueling.
I'm 57, been pumping gas 40 years and never noticed that little thing.
I thanked the kid for teaching me something new and gave him a tip.

I felt kinda the same way when many years ago I read the verses that you quoted. Oh man, I've got it all wrong I thought. And I did. And I'm so grateful for figuring that out.

to be fair i don't think they've been putting those there for a full 40 years

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

One of the things mentioned in Lu 21 is Jesus' prophecy stating that Jerusalem will be trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled vs 24.

YES, THAT'S WHAT I AM POINTING OUT!!!



[but with a slight--ever-so-slight--difference, as I will spell out below...]

No other generation except for our can say that the times of the gentiles be fulfilled.

Some believe (as I am detecting may be true of your view as well) that "the TIMES of the Gentiles" were FULFILLED when Israel became a nation again in 1948 (or Jerusalem... in 1967)... but I'm seeing this particular phrase to be referring instead to [same thing in Rev11:2] the LATTER PARTS of the BEAST [Neb's "statue / image / dream" of which Neb was "HEAD of gold"]--the latter parts being the "TOES" [etc] (they have yet to "do their thing" in the TRIB YRS; see the TIME-REFERENCE in Rv11:2);

So that, all that this part of Lk21:24c is saying is that the LATTER PARTS OF THE BEAST [/statue / image / dream] will NOT be CONCLUDED [wiped out] "UNTIL" Christ's Second Coming TO THE EARTH (Rev19 / Dan2:35 / Dan7:25,27 / 2Th2:8b / Dan9:27c / etc)

The phrase "the TIMES of the Gentiles" referring to "GENTILE DOMINATION OVER ISRAEL" (i.e. Neb's "dream / statue / image")... not being the same thing as the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles [be come in G1525]"

(Rev11:2 is saying that the FORMER of these two, won't be "FULFILLED" until the END of the TRIB yrs... at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19);



... so I disagree with those who suggest that Luke 21:24c (that part) HAS BEEN "fulfilled" (in 1948 or 1967); no, it won't be "fulfilled" until His "RETURN" to the earth (but yeah, I agree that'll be in the same general era; I'm just saying, the phrase itself... in that sentence in Lk21:24c... is not referring specifically to [what happened in] 1948 or 1967, see.)

And of the generation that sees the things mentioned in Lu 21 beginning at verse 24 we're told in Lu 21: 28:
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
which is listed right after Lu 21:27:
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Slightly differently, I would say (instead) "when they see the things mentioned in vv.25-26 [which INCLUDES the LATTER PARTS OF THE BEAST of v.24c ("Jerusalem... TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles"--Rv11:2 also!!)], they are to 'look up'"... for their redemption draweth nigh (at His SECOND COMING TO THE EARTH, FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age--This is NOT "OUR RAPTURE" event, just to be clear)



Does that make sense?





[basically, I disagree only with the idea that "the TIMES of the Gentiles" (Lk21:24) was "FULFILLED" in 1948 / 1967... Instead in WILL be "FULFILLED" at the END of the Trib yrs, because it INCLUDES the "latter parts of [toes of]" the beast/statue/image (that Neb was "HEAD of gold" of...); Whereas "the FULNESS of the Gentiles [be come in - G1525]" is DISTINCT and occurs at an EARLIER time-slot from that]

 

[Publican]

to be fair i don't think they've been putting those there for a full 40 years

That makes me feel little less dense, thanks

 

[glf]

YES, THAT'S WHAT I AM POINTING OUT!!!
[but with a slight--ever-so-slight--difference, as I will spell out below...]
Some believe (as I am detecting may be true of your view as well) that "the TIMES of the Gentiles" were FULFILLED when Israel became a nation again in 1948 (or Jerusalem... in 1967)... but I'm seeing this particular phrase to be referring instead to [same thing in Rev11:2] the LATTER PARTS of the BEAST [Neb's "statue / image / dream" of which Neb was "HEAD of gold"]--the latter parts being the "TOES" [etc] (they have yet to "do their thing" in the TRIB YRS; see the TIME-REFERENCE in Rv11:2);

So that, all that this part of Lk21:24c is saying is that the LATTER PARTS OF THE BEAST [/statue / image / dream] will NOT be CONCLUDED [wiped out] "UNTIL" Christ's Second Coming TO THE EARTH (Rev19 / Dan2:35 / Dan7:25,27 / 2Th2:8b / Dan9:27c / etc)

The phrase "the TIMES of the Gentiles" referring to "GENTILE DOMINATION OVER ISRAEL" (i.e. Neb's "dream / statue / image")... not being the same thing as the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles [be come in G1525]"

(Rev11:2 is saying that the FORMER of these two, won't be "FULFILLED" until the END of the TRIB yrs... at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19);

... so I disagree with those who suggest that Luke 21:24c (that part) HAS BEEN "fulfilled" (in 1948 or 1967); no, it won't be "fulfilled" until His "RETURN" to the earth (but yeah, I agree that'll be in the same general era; I'm just saying, the phrase itself... in that sentence in Lk21:24c... is not referring specifically to [what happened in] 1948 or 1967, see.)
Slightly differently, I would say (instead) "when they see the things mentioned in vv.25-26 [which INCLUDES the LATTER PARTS OF THE BEAST of v.24c ("Jerusalem... TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles"--Rv11:2 also!!)], they are to 'look up'"... for their redemption draweth nigh (at His SECOND COMING TO THE EARTH, FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age--This is NOT "OUR RAPTURE" event, just to be clear)

Does that make sense?

[basically, I disagree only with the idea that "the TIMES of the Gentiles" (Lk21:24) was "FULFILLED" in 1948 / 1967... Instead in WILL be "FULFILLED" at the END of the Trib yrs, because it INCLUDES the "latter parts of [toes of]" the beast/statue/image (that Neb was "HEAD of gold" of...); Whereas "the FULNESS of the Gentiles [be come in - G1525]" is DISTINCT and occurs at an EARLIER time-slot from that]

Yes it makes sence. Considering that these issues are some of the most obscured parts of scripture and I suspect, ment to be understood best as it's happening...
We are very close in our understandings of these events that are soon to come to pass!