Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Everyone I know seems to be reading the Bible these days in search of answers. That is usually a good thing but not always. In fact, too many of the Biblical discussions I get into with friends and family members relate to the “End Times” and whether they are upon us. That is a shame because reading the Bible can enrich one’s daily life provided one is not obsessed with using it as a device to decipher the future.
Because of one relatively simple error in dating one book of the New Testament, author Tim LaHaye has misled tens of millions of people into thinking that a great time of tribulation is near. He has Christians everywhere looking for signs of an emerging anti-Christ and, ultimately, in a cowardly fashion, looking forward to a time when Christ will rapture his church away from earthly troubles.
If Christians would simply study the New Testament themselves – instead of relying upon 21st Century “prophets” writing fictional books for 21st Century profits – they would arrive at a few very simple conclusions:
1. The Revelation to John was written around 65 AD, not 95 AD.
2. The anti-Christ was Nero, not some world figure yet to emerge in the 21st Century.
3. The tribulation occurred in the First Century around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
4. The “rapture” never happened and it never will.
5. The words of Jesus in Matthew 24 plainly reveal that most of the discourse in The Revelation to John is based on events in the First Century.
Once an individual realizes he is stuck here on earth and will not be raptured away from all of his troubles, he can begin to read the Bible the way it was intended to be read. I have a word of advice for those who have never really thought about reading the Bible as an end in itself rather than as a means to some goal such as predicting the future. My advice is actually borrowed from a friend who received a moving card from his wife just a few months ago.
After receiving the cherished card from his wife, my friend would sneak into their bedroom late at night (she always fell asleep while he was finishing his last TV show). After giving her a kiss while she was sleeping, he would take the card off his dresser and go into the spare room to read it by the light of a small lamp.
There were certain lines he would read three and four times over: “It is a privilege to know you, to share myself with you,” “I never knew such a person could exist until I met you,” and “You lift my spirits to places where my troubles seem so much farther away.”
Be the first to read Townhall.com. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
It was wonderful to hear that a dear friend had found his “soul mate” and all of the joy that comes from lifelong companionship. But, at the same time, I could not listen to his story without thinking of all the other friends I know who have suffered through a painful divorce or, in some cases, never even met someone with whom they share a special bond of love. And some are growing older and lonelier by the day.
But, recently, I received a new insight into what seems to be an unfair distribution of soul mates among God’s children. It came as I was listening to a pastor named “Mike” whose last name I do not even know. His message was broadcast from Port City Church in Wilmington to a theater rented out to handle the overflow of his growing congregation.
He urged each member of his church to read the First Letter of John during the coming week. He also urged them to read it as if it were written just for them by someone who is madly in love with them.
I was so intrigued by this take on the proper approach to reading the New Testament epistle that I immediately bought a copy of the English Standard Version – a version I’ve been meaning to read for quite some time. Later that night I opened it and started reading by the light of a small lamp:
“…Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake … Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure… We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him…”
After reading those lines, it occurred to me that I had only been skimming through this great epistle on my last several runs through the New Testament. My zeal to get to The Revelation to John has been such that I have hardly noticed those great words in the years following the attacks of 911.
We all need to learn to read the Word as if it were written for us personally by someone who could not love us more. When we cannot get enough of it in the here and now, the future seems so much less important. And a little uncertainty is hardly the end of the world.
AMPU and I have already spoken on this. AMPU is a good guy and that is not a sneer.
I'm slowly working my way through the whole thread, and I'd seen that.
My problems with dispensationalism are NOT primarily with the eschatology.
Amen. From what I've seen, the eschatology seems to be almost secondary to the whole Israel =/= Church thing.
This is destructive, and why even among your VERY BEST dispensational preachers (and there are some excellent pastors and teachers among them), you hear the kind of sermons you do from the OT. They teach moralisms and and examples of the faith of these men (that is GOOD), warnings not to emulate their mistakes (also GOOD), and the constant character of God (who can fault THAT!). However, they can't seem to find CHRIST in the OT.
Our current Sunday School class is about Abraham, and is just like that. I'm waiting to see what he'll make of the covenant (or even if he gets around to it).
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul the first time he ran for Gran Jefe.
“7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that they shall no more say, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; 8 but, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell in their own land.”
And didn't that happen when Cyrus told the Jews they could go home? Why bump that to 1948?
Lee, that is the real key for me. I had been a Christian for 25 years and had taught in a number of capacities, and still did not understand that the GOSPEL is the heartbeat of this whole deal. I just didn't "get it" that this whole deal is about JESUS and his death/forgiveness/resurrection, and the positive righteousness and UNION with him. I almost blew up my life about 15 years ago (no adultery, but some pretty serious financial sin) and I was FORCED back to the place where I came to Jesus. I had thought of my life as kind of a "doorway" (the gospel) into a workout room (Chrisian disciplines).... and I had been hell on wheels on those disciplines. I was shocked at myself and so ashamed and humiliated, and I bless God for it now. My message had been a version of "God's way works....., just look at me and be in awe!" And yet, when He saved me, I had been just happy he would have me. It was rediscovering the simple gospel and the joy from that caused me to fall in love again with covenant theology. Seeing the entire Old Testament as the great throbbing heart of God as he lays out the SAME message of CHRIST, CHRIST, CHRIST makes it so much more a relevant message...., as it is esentially the SAME message all the way through. I think one of the reasons that covenant theology is not as attractive to some of my brothers is that the church as a whole today is confused about the role of the gospel in the Christian life, and therefore, most people don't see the screaming need for it. I know that was the case for and with me. I don't hate my dispensational brothers, but I think the dispensational division of scriptures really does obscure the gospel in a large part of the Bible. That is the only reason I really care about it, truth be told. In looking at how I "lost" the gospel in all of my evangelical legalism, I just want to avoid anything that doesn't bring that message front and center, all the time.
I got 50 workers' comp policies left to process, it is 11:30 and I am tired. Gotta go.
Grace, and peace from the prince of Peace.
DoP
Well, they are the source of the corrupt texts that the modern bibles are now following.
Your point is interesting, since the translators of the Textus Receptus (KJV) did not view the variants (and there WERE variants) the same way you do, nor did the view the TR as the "preserved" version. They were pretty much of the same mindset of modern scholars, viewing all the texts with differing degrees of reliability, including tha TR. You also had your liberals (although they were far fewer in number than today) who did not hold any reverential awe for the book.
The idea that God preserved His word through the ages is an indisputable fact, and a lynchpin of the faith. The idea that this was only through the Textus Receptus is ignorant and uninformed. Not even the translators of the KJV believed that. I used to have a collection of quotes from some of those guys illustrating that, but I have misplaced it.
Your point is interesting, since the translators of the Textus Receptus (KJV) did not view the variants (and there WERE variants) the same way you do, nor did the view the TR as the "preserved" version. They were pretty much of the same mindset of modern scholars, viewing all the texts with differing degrees of reliability, including tha TR. You also had your liberals (although they were far fewer in number than today) who did not hold any reverential awe for the book.
The King James translators rejected any and all readings that all found in the current Alexandrian texts.
The TR readings, in its various editions does have differences among itself, but these are relatively small compared to the differences between the Critical and TR texts.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
They did not think God had lost some of His words and we could never really know what God said.
The idea that God preserved His word through the ages is an indisputable fact, and a lynchpin of the faith. The idea that this was only through the Textus Receptus is ignorant and uninformed. Not even the translators of the KJV believed that. I used to have a collection of quotes from some of those guys illustrating that, but I have misplaced it.
The fact is that there are two lines of Bibles.
The TR produced the Luther Bible, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible, The Geneva and the King James.
Those Bibles do not read as do the modern Bibles that were the products of the Westcort/Hort, Nestle/Aland, United Bible Society texts.
Two different lines of Greek Bibles, two different types of Bibles with different readings in them, producing two different kinds of fruit.
For example, I had a visit from the JW's the other day.
And they had their New World Translation (from the Alexandrian Greek Text) and they rejected the Trinity on the basis of Matthew 24:36, which in their 'bible' had 'nor the Son' knowing the time of the Second Coming.
All modern bibles have that reading it, a reading which attacks the Trinity.
The TR doesn't have that reading in it, nor does the King James.
BTW I’m curious about your screen name. What does it mean?
An interesting point, since the Alexandrian texts were largely undiscovered before the 19th century.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
AMEN! That does not, however extend to the idea that there was a belief that the Byzantine Text was the "pure" text vs the "corrupt" Alexandrian or other streams. That is simply a historical error, and NOT the opinion even of the men who translated the KJV.
The fact is that there are two hundreds of lines of Bibles.
There, fixed it for ya.
The fact is that given ALL the different texts we have of the NT, and with the 22,000+ "variants" we have in reading, over 95% of them are completely insignificant. Of the less than 5% which DO affect some text, not a single one affects any major doctrine of the faith. God HAS preserved his word, and all the hoopla about the "satanic attempt to corrupt the word of God" is just silliness.
As for the "New World (ahem) 'translation'", I am reminded of a funny story a friend of mine used with a Jehovah's Witness. This guy came on with all the typical crap about Westcott and Hort and the original greek. My friend said "Oh! We are talking about the Greek text? Lets get a New Testament and look at it!" He got two Greek NT and gave one to the "elder brother" in the team (hint: when evangelising a JW, always address your questions in a gracious manner to the guy who is NOT talking! He is the "newbie" and is less indoctrinated and hardened). He opened it and put it in the guy's hands, and asked him to discuss the text at hand. The guy was bluffing his a** off, trying to "discuss" the text. My friend walked over to him, removed the text from his hand TURNED IT RIGHT SIDE UP, and said "oh, sorry, I handed it to you upside down." He then returned to discussing the need for the new birth with the younger guy, the difference between the JW view of "atonement" and hammered on how the gospel transforms a man, including making him HONEST and filled with INTEGRITY (never said a word about the upside down stuff), and giving an assurance of heaven. The elder one sat there and DID NOT SAY A WORD (that is extremely unusual) and my friend had a good conversation about the gospel (again, an extremely unusual event because of the "rabbit trail" MO the elders are trained to follow).
Anyhow, the best and most respected scholars on the textual variants are solid inerrantists, and I know very few of them who are TR only advocates (although there are some, to be honest).
Polycarp was a true hero. He was a man of great faith who joked with his executioners facing martyrdom. When given the opportunity to renounce his faith, he was asked to repeat a state creed renouncing Christ which began "Away with the atheists!" (Christians worshipped no visible gods and consequentlywere charged with atheism by the Romans). Polycarp waved his hand and looked around at the people in the arena and sardonically said "away with the atheists." I have always admired the guy who spits in the face of death, and have had a weird romantic attachment to people like that, who can make fun of his own death, saying essentially "bring it on." He then gave a MOVING testimony to his faith in Christ. As he was dying, there are stories that he received a "vision" or a sensate experience of the presence of Christ. I was moved by the story, and hope to die as well as he does, whether or not it is as a "martyr."
Thanks for asking. Amazing how popular theological errors can be cured by even a single year of NT Greek study. Prepositions are very important in the Greek language, used to convey a variety of shades of meaning. Or, when translated by an inappropriate English word, capable of doing great harm. Consider ek, such a small word to exert such leverage in dethroning the King of the universe! When Jesus said that His Kingdom was not "ek tou kosmou toutou" He was speaking of His Kingdom's source, not its location. His Kingdom is not derived from an earthly combination of powers, and owes nothing to anything (or anyone) on this planet. However, Psalm 110 is the OT chapter most frequently quoted or cited in the NT, and it speaks of a reigning King who is overcoming His enemies one by one. See I Cor. 15:25-35, for example. Our God reigns now, and being in on what He is up to is the most glorious use for our brief lives.
Dispensational eschatology, by contrast, evicts God's Kingdom from the present and the local, relocating it to two inaccessible places -- the hidden inner soul, and the distant future.
One of the great delights I experienced in moving from the frantic freak show / horror show of pop eschatology into the sober, significant, and deeply joyous Reformed perspective was -- a new appreciation for corporate realities. Since we are Trinitarian, we recognize that the plural is as significant as the personal. God's Kingdom is revealed, and forwarded, through plural entities such as churches, families, and nations. Wherever godly fathers, elders, and magistrates govern their families, churches, and communities in His fear and by His Word, blessings are released.
Hey, I don't mind having a "personal" Savior. Explain to me, though, how such an artificially restricted role differs from that of guru.
It's a lot more fun to sit down at the King's table, get debriefed on how things are faring in my corner of the Kingdom, get fresh assignments, and the resources needed to pursue them. To eat His food, and don His uniform. To know that this world is better for ever day that I am in it, representing and serving the King. And that my labor is not in vain in the Lord, but contributing towards the day, directly connected with my efforts, when His glory will cover the earth as the waters fill the seas.
I went and looked at the website. While Elliot may make the claim, "Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero", I can find no supporting evidence of this. Furthermore, there is nothing in any historical documents that I can find that give Domitian the title of Nero and every indication that Domitian would loath Nero. Why would he want that name? I'm not sure where Elliot got his information but it is, at best, suspect. I can't find any specific reference from Elliot. All I can find is general statements and Elliot is not unbias in his views.
I haven't read every ancient scroll-far from it. But for Elliot to say, "and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero" is an unsubstantiated supposition that has no supporting documentation.
FWIW, suicide bombers have that same attitude.
Not so --- the most important one was sitting in the Vatican library [Vaticanus B] and had been offered to Erasmus when he was putting together his Greek Text. But he rejected it because of its many corruptions of the text. Yet Westcott and Hort resurrected it and used it extensively.
I find it interesting that to this day the New Versions of the Bible, relying on these Alexandrian texts, continue to insist on leaving out the second part of Luke 4:4 which reads: "It is written, Man does not live by bread alone," and yet leave out the most important part of that verse: "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".
This second half is the most important part of that scripture, but its absence in Bibles deriving their text from Alexandrian readings is quite revealing, because the Alexandrian manuscripts leave out a whole lot of the words of God. They are always much shorter than the TR manuscripts.
Incidentally, the excission of these words from the text can be traced all the way back to Marcion the Apostate, the greatest heretic of the early church who was dedicated to separating Christianity from its Jewish roots, creating a pure Gentile Christianity devoid of the Old Testament prophets. Corrupting the scriptures was an integral part of his diabolical mission.
We now live in an age when people just read, quote, memorize their favorite verses that justify their own particular theological doctrines, and ignore those that challenge their pet doctrines. But Jesus said that "every word" is necessary for eternal life and that means even those words that upset one's own beloved theological bread wagon.
But whereas Nero just killed Christians and his perceived enemies outright with beheadings ..., Domitian was famous for sending them into exile. Thus John instead of being beheaded was exiled to Patmos --- a fate that would not have been given to him by Nero, but would have been and was given to him by the one who followed in Nero's footsteps.
An interesting point, since the Alexandrian texts were largely undiscovered before the 19th century.
What there was of the Alexandrian texts, as found in the readings of the Douey-Rheims, from 'B', were rejected.
Thus, the Douey-Rheims (a Roman Catholic bible) did not have the same readings as the King James.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
AMEN! That does not, however extend to the idea that there was a belief that the Byzantine Text was the "pure" text vs the "corrupt" Alexandrian or other streams. That is simply a historical error, and NOT the opinion even of the men who translated the KJV.
No, because the men who translated the King James did reject 'B' readings as found in the Douey-Rheims.
Hence the term later used, Textus Receptus was used to show that the Elzevir text(1633) was the 'Received Text' of the Christian Church.
Westcott and Hort, attempting to overthrow, what they called the 'vile Textus Receptus', tried to establish the Alexandrian text.
And that is the Critical Text which is the basis for most modern versions.
The fact is that there are two hundreds of lines of Bibles. There, fixed it for ya.
No, there are hundreds of translatons of the bible, but they either follow one textual line or the other.
Most of the modern translations follow the Critical readings found the NA/UBS Greek texts.
There are some that have attempted to follow the TR, such as the NKJ, but still give the CT and MT as 'alternative' readings.
The fact is that given ALL the different texts we have of the NT, and with the 22,000+ "variants" we have in reading, over 95% of them are completely insignificant. Of the less than 5% which DO affect some text, not a single one affects any major doctrine of the faith. God HAS preserved his word, and all the hoopla about the "satanic attempt to corrupt the word of God" is just silliness.
Well, that 5% does affect major doctrines, as I showed you in the previous post.
That is an incorrect reading which calls into question the Trinity.
There are some 5,000 differences between the TR and the CT and some of these are very significant.
We can discuss some of these if you like.
As for the "New World (ahem) 'translation'", I am reminded of a funny story a friend of mine used with a Jehovah's Witness. This guy came on with all the typical crap about Westcott and Hort and the original greek. My friend said "Oh! We are talking about the Greek text? Lets get a New Testament and look at it!" He got two Greek NT and gave one to the "elder brother" in the team (hint: when evangelising a JW, always address your questions in a gracious manner to the guy who is NOT talking! He is the "newbie" and is less indoctrinated and hardened). He opened it and put it in the guy's hands, and asked him to discuss the text at hand. The guy was bluffing his a** off, trying to "discuss" the text. My friend walked over to him, removed the text from his hand TURNED IT RIGHT SIDE UP, and said "oh, sorry, I handed it to you upside down." He then returned to discussing the need for the new birth with the younger guy, the difference between the JW view of "atonement" and hammered on how the gospel transforms a man, including making him HONEST and filled with INTEGRITY (never said a word about the upside down stuff), and giving an assurance of heaven. The elder one sat there and DID NOT SAY A WORD (that is extremely unusual) and my friend had a good conversation about the gospel (again, an extremely unusual event because of the "rabbit trail" MO the elders are trained to follow).
That is all very well and good.
I showed him Rev.1:7-8 from their own translation that states that Jesus Christ (who was pierced) stated that he was in fact Jehovah God.
That doesn't change the fact that they had a incorrect reading in their translation, one that would have caused doubt to someone who saw it and did not know it was a corrupt reading, the same reading found in all other modern versions.
Anyhow, the best and most respected scholars on the textual variants are solid inerrantists, and I know very few of them who are TR only advocates (although there are some, to be honest).
CT advocates believe that we do not have the complete word of God, that every text has errors in it, and that God was unable or unwilling to preserve His words.
Now, either the readings found in the modern versions are correct or the ones found in the King James are.
They both cannot be right.
All bibles are not the same.
According to yours and the CT view, we almost have the words of God (95%).
Amen to your post!
That may be true but there is no written historical records abscribing such a thing; it's pure conjecture. I would argue that it would be just the opposite. Saying Domitain was referred to as Nero would be similar to an argument 2000 years from now of saying Stalin was really Lenin or Hitler was Musolini. Historians, especially in the very ancient days, would not have called different people by the same names. It would be too confusing.
This is rather significant in my mind because there is far more evidences of Revelation being written prior to 70AD than in the 90s. The 70s group is pointing to the Syrian text (states John was sent to Patmos by Nero), Jerome's writings (states that Nero tried to kill John at the same time of Peter and Paul) and the Muratorian Canon (which states Paul's writings were based upon John's writings).
The 90s group is pointing to one statement made by Iraeneus a hundred years after the fact and quotes from other fathers pointing to what Iraeneus stated. They refute part of the Syrian writings by saying that Nero isn't really Nero at all but Domitian, although they offer not historical proof for this claim.
Now, honestly and objectively, what do you think sounds more credible?
Well, let's read I Corinthians to see if you are right:
"20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
Has his coming taken place yet??? When did that happen??? The kingdom is established after "his coming", according to the text. And he then reigns on this earth until all his enemies are subdued, according to the text. Let's read on to see what will happen after his second coming which is still future:
"24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
First "His coming" and then "His reign" from the restored city of Jerusalem, according to the scriptures, Old and New.
Lee,
You only need to know that the Jews universally celebrate
Passover still. Some day, the regathering will be so great
that Jews will no longer talk about the Deliverance from Egypt,
but will talk about the miraculous regathering.
Now, one further item to clarify. I do not believe that the
formation of the State of Israel in ‘48 was the miraculous
regathering that will occur. I believe it remains in the
future. I can see why someone may automatically believe
the Hal Lindsey approach as representative of all
premils, but it is not so. So your question about Cyrus
vs. 1948 is not an accurate choice in this context.
Best to you,
ampu
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.