Skip to comments.TWISTING SCRIPTURE
Posted on 06/10/2021 4:52:18 PM PDT by grumpa
ARE THESE INTERPRETATIONS TWISTING THE WORDS OF JESUS AND THE BIBLICAL WRITERS?
“This generation” (Mt. 11:16; 12:39; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34) REALLY MEANT some other future generation.
“In a very, very little while” (Heb. 10:37) REALLY MEANT thousands of years later.
“The end is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7) REALLY MEANT it was not at hand at all, but rather far distant.
“The time was short” (1 Cor. 7:29) REALLY MEANT the time was a long time off.
“It is the last hour” (1 John 2:18) REALLY MEANT millions of hours later.
Judgment to occur at Jesus’ return in his kingdom “before some standing here taste death” (Mt. 16:27-28) REALLY MEANT a time like Pentecost or the Ascension when there would be no judgment.
“Must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) REALLY MEANT it would NOT take place shortly.
“The time is near” (Rev. 1:3; 22:10) REALLY MEANT the time was far away.
“Soon” (Phil. 2:19; Rev. 22:12, 20) REALLY MEANT not soon at all.
“My kingdom is not of this world” (Lk. 17:20; Jn. 18:36) REALLY MEANT Jesus’ kingdom will be a literal millennial kingdom IN THE WORLD.
Paul said the gospel “has been proclaimed to the whole world” (Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 16:25-27; Col. 1:6; 23), but that couldn’t have REALLY MEANT the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:14 about the gospel being preached to the “whole world.”
The “kingdom will be taken from you [the Jews] and given to a people producing its fruits” (Mt. 21:43) REALLY MEANT the kingdom belonged to the Jews forever.
“May no fruit ever come from you [the fig tree = Old Covenant Israel] again” (Mt. 21:19) REALLY MEANT some day Israel will bear fruit again.
Jerusalem and temple to be “destroyed” (Dan. 9:26; Zech. 14:11) REALLY MEANT a third temple will be built.
That’s odd, my on-line Bible website (drbo.org) doesn’t include Matt 16:27-28.
Which translation are you using?
You seem to have missed the principle of dual fulfillment.
And there is the admonition against adding words to Scripture; never mind the antisemitic context you attempt it in.
Seriously, those are some very good questions.
But, as Mark Twain said, “It’s not the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that make me uncomfortable.”
Cue the “Not this $hit again” guy.
It means the generation that is living through the Tribulation.
That’s not too hard to figure out.
It also makes far more sense for that interpretation that tp presume in the middle of a discourse on future events to suddenly, for one sentence, talk about the present He was in, and then flip back to future events with no clarification.
There are possible dual fulfillments in the Old Testament. For example, the Jews’ restoration to their homeland after the Babylonian exile could be seen as finally fulfilled in Jesus. But there is nothing like that in the New Testament. Everything in the Bible points to Jesus and his first-century work. If you have some examples of where it is stated or implied that some biblical prophecy would be fulfilled in the fist century and then again thousands of years in the future, let’s see them.
To what time-period does the phrase “this generation” in the New Testament refer? It is used in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32) in reference to the fulfillment of end times prophecies. A straight-forward reading of the text indicates that these prophecies would be fulfilled while some hearing Jesus’ words in the first century were still alive.
To confirm that it refers to the first century contemporaries of Jesus we need only to look at the other times the phrase is used in the New Testament. Without doubt, it ALWAYS refers to those living in the first century. No other conclusion is possible without doing violence to the text. Here are all the times the phrase is used outside of the Olivet Discourse. Look up these passages for yourself:
Matthew 11:16-24; 12:38-45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:35-36; Mark 8:12; 8:38-9:1; 9:19, and Luke 7:31; 9:41; 11:29-32, 49-51; 17:25; Acts 2:40.
The certain conclusion is that the “end times” is not about the end of the physical universe, not about the end of the Christian age, and not about anything in our future. It is about the end of the Old Covenant age, which ended with the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in AD 70 in the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries.
For more on this, see my article entitled “When Was the Olivet Discourse Fulfilled?” here:
Have you read Genesis? Do you recall the prophecy about crush the serpent’s head? What religious org are you trying to make room for?
Technically that admonition at the end of the book of Revelation is pertinent to and relevant to only the book of the Revelation, not to the entire collection of 73 books that is the Bible.
Grumpa is correct, mhg.
In Genesis, this crushing of the serpents head is about the Christ’s victory over Satan with His, Jesus’s resurrection
Revelation 22:18-19 is concurrent with Deuteronomy 4:2/12:32. As well as Matthew 19:17 and John 14:15.
Then was God a liar when He said with Him, a day is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8)?
Everything in the Bible points to Jesus and his first-century work …
While I am not persuaded by Preterism they can certainly make a better case for their position than the Dispensationalists can.
DAY AS A THOUSAND YEARS. This passage cannot have a literal meaning, otherwise it would be nonsense. Thus, it cannot mean that a short time really means a long time. Jesus was in the tomb three days. Does that mean he was in the tomb three thousand years, and his resurrection is still a thousand years off?
The context of this statement in 2 Peter 3 is that the scoffers were reminding Peter that Jesus had promised to return in judgment in their generation, but now, about three decades later it had not yet happened. So, Peter scolds the scoffers and advised them that “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise” as they themselves were “waiting for the hastening day of the Lord” (2 Peter 3:12). So, Peter, writing in the early 60’s AD was issuing a strong warning about the soon coming destruction in AD 66-70 when Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans, the temple destroyed, and the system of temple ordinances ceased forever as the Old Covenant order was abolished. So, rather than arguing that the Fall of Jerusalem was a long time off, Peter was arguing that it would happen soon. And he was correct.
For more details about 2 Peter 3, see my articles in section B here:
Red herrings. The phrase pertains to prophecy.
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.