|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 17:47:29 GMT -8
onthe3edge,
Our conversation elsewhere has me wondering, are there time gaps in bible prophecies that give no indication in the original prophecy that we should expect them?
Can we try out a few cases and see if there are any that we can agree on?
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 12, 2014 3:02:11 GMT -8
onthe3edge,
Our conversation elsewhere has me wondering, are there time gaps in bible prophecies that give no indication in the original prophecy that we should expect them?
Can we try out a few cases and see if there are any that we can agree on?
Well, one could be Mat. 24:29, "Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened..." right after a passage preterists say has already happened. I'll try and list some more later on. Another would be what God said to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. When he spoke of the two respective "seeds" he gave no indication that thousands of years would pass before the one would crush the other. Some commentators believe that in naming Cain she expressed hope that this was the promised Seed, and if so, she too expected no significant gap of time from the promise to its fulfillment. (one example at biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/genesis/4.htm ) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 12, 2014 7:26:42 GMT -8
We'll have to put that one aside... it's too intricately related to the reason why I want to look elsewhere  As to Genesis 3, I don't think the prophecy gives a strong indication of when it was to be fulfilled (like the last few chapters of Daniel do), so if Eve misunderstood it, that's simply because the prophesy was vague. One I thought of was "the almah/virgin will conceive" of Isaiah 7, which seems to be about a specific time period (Isaiah's lifetime) but is a referent to Mary. But I'm of the opinion that that was a double fulfillment- an immediate one in Isaiah's life and typologically in Mary's. And this is one single event (conception/ birth), not a series of details events with some weird gap in between them. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 12, 2014 7:29:00 GMT -8
Permit me to redefine/ narrow our search criteria:
Another detailed prophecy of a series of events in which we agree there is a major time gap somewhere in the midst of those events, without any kind of clue we should expect it in the original wording.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 12, 2014 10:14:45 GMT -8
We'll have to put that one aside... it's too intricately related to the reason why I want to look elsewhere As to Genesis 3, I don't think the prophecy gives a strong indication of when it was to be fulfilled (like the last few chapters of Daniel do), so if Eve misunderstood it, that's simply because the prophesy was vague. One I thought of was "the almah/virgin will conceive" of Isaiah 7, which seems to be about a specific time period (Isaiah's lifetime) but is a referent to Mary. But I'm of the opinion that that was a double fulfillment- an immediate one in Isaiah's life and typologically in Mary's. And this is one single event (conception/ birth), not a series of details events with some weird gap in between them. Re. Gen. 3, that's the point. There was no indication that a vast expanse of time would take place, and Eve seemed to think it would be in her lifetime. Nothing in the context hints at a great delay. Agree about Isaiah 7. But why say "weird" gap? That give me the impression you think I'm just making up gaps when I want to. But as I've tried to explain, gaps are for prophecies that have not yet been completed, since there is no clear historical proof that they were. I don't accept "it was meant to be only spiritual" as evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2014 16:02:17 GMT -8
I wasn't really seeing Gen. 3:14-15 as a "series of events in which we agree there is a major time gap somewhere in the midst of those events" but now that I look at it again, I suppose it does fit that description in a mini-version. It starts with references to the immediate situation and transitions to far future events pretty seamlessly.
Okay, so that's an example of what I was looking for.
But Gen. 3 still feels so different than Daniel 11, where you're taking Daniel's predictions and easily checking them off one-to-one in minute details with the Ptolemys and Selucids, etc.. and then all the sudden it goes awry. I can understand why a skeptic would suspect we've suddenly entered from prophesy ex eventu to prophesy guess-eventu  *
However, the point of my original post was actually that I had found an interpreter (Mauro) who did interpret the rest of Dan. 11 in light of intertestimental history, and I was pretty impressed with his work. It was not a "only spiritual" interpretation. Are you familiar with Mauro or similar interpretations?
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 13, 2014 16:49:02 GMT -8
I wasn't really seeing Gen. 3:14-15 as a "series of events in which we agree there is a major time gap somewhere in the midst of those events" but now that I look at it again, I suppose it does fit that description in a mini-version. It starts with references to the immediate situation and transitions to far future events pretty seamlessly.
Okay, so that's an example of what I was looking for.
But Gen. 3 still feels so different than Daniel 11, where you're taking Daniel's predictions and easily checking them off one-to-one in minute details with the Ptolemys and Selucids, etc.. and then all the sudden it goes awry. I can understand why a skeptic would suspect we've suddenly entered from prophesy ex eventu to prophesy guess-eventu *
However, the point of my original post was actually that I had found an interpreter (Mauro) who did interpret the rest of Dan. 11 in light of intertestimental history, and I was pretty impressed with his work. It was not a "only spiritual" interpretation. Are you familiar with Mauro or similar interpretations?
I'm more focused on Dan. 9 as an example of a prophecy that hasn't been completed. And it does contain an element of unknown time passage: "War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed". I agree that Dan. 11 matches nicely with historical events, yet future fulfillments cannot be ruled out. A clearer example would be where Isaiah 7:13-17 speaks of a clear historical fulfillment that has an equally clear second fulfillment that no one would have gleaned from the prophecy until Jesus came. So on what basis can we say that any given prophecy with a historical fulfilment cannot have another future fulfillment as well? Had anyone but Matthew cited this verse as fulfilled by Jesus, wouldn't you call it "weird"? Yet this is not really an example of a gap in prophecy. The 70 weeks prophecy is a gap, while Dan. 11 would be more of a dual like Isaiah 7. Maybe that's what feels different to you. Either way, it's hardly guessing; I've repeatedly given examples of precedences upon which to base my views. I could as easily label it a copout when you spiritualize something whose literal meaning would contradict preterist beliefs. Like "the emperor's new clothes", claims that something was fulfilled but it was invisible just don't cut it. Preterism has too many such copouts for me. Not really familiar with Mauro, but it's been quite a while since I read up on this topic. But again, I don't dispute historical fulfillment; I just dispute the claim that it automatically forbids future fulfillments as well. And I know this frustrates you, but prophecy is not something to be neatly cut and folded and kept in a box. There are many things that simply will not be fully known until history is completely finished. This is why I keep stressing the fact that much of what we take for granted as prophetic fulfillment relies entirely on hindsight. Who in the OT would have forseen that the Messiah would come once to suffer and later to rule? Who forsaw the "church", which Paul stated explictly was a "mystery" only revealed after Jesus came? So also we should never think we have all prophecies figured out. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2014 18:49:28 GMT -8
Maybe we should discuss on the Daniel's 70 7s thread why we think certain details of the objectives of the 70 7s have or have not been completed. And I have acknowledge elsewhere a potential short gap for the "war will continue to the end" (the alternative view of the last 3 1/2 years). I just think it would be strange if the gap itself was longer than the entire period of 490 years, which you hold.
Perhaps I haven't been clear. I haven't been saying that a prophecy cannot have a dual fulfillment. Matthew had the perspective of hindsight to declare a double fulfillment. I'm just saying that I don't think futurists have a good reason to insist that the Olivet Discourse must have a future dual fulfillment. And of course I don't think we can figure out and neatly fold up all of prophecy. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right? God has permitted a lot of uncertainty and mystery to permeate prophecy- and I don't think it's on accident. It keeps us humble and vigilant, and hopefully charitable.
Perhaps I don't understand your view on Daniel 11. Do you think that Daniel 11:36-45 has a double fulfillment? I've just been assuming that you think that section is only fulfilled in the future.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 17, 2014 5:09:33 GMT -8
Why would it be strange? If a sequential prophecy is interrupted and nobody states how long the interruption is, then who can say what the outside limit of the gap must be? The words "cut off" seem to indicate a pause at the very least, yet no pause can be allowed if the prophecy cannot extend beyond 490 years total. 490 is the total years of the prophecy, and they will equal exactly 490 years total fulfillment when completed, since as far as God is concerned they were "cut off" and the 70th week hasn't even started. "Seventy weeks have been determined", and while the beginning and ending events of the first 69 were specified and completed, the 70th clearly does not begin until the confirmation of the 7-year covenant. Consider this: At the Jerusalem Council, James cited a prophecy by Amos as filling a gap of the time during which God would make a name for himself among the Gentiles and then "return and rebuild David's fallen tent". Since James said this after Jesus' ascension yet before 70 AD, this gap still is in effect. Clearly the destruction of the temple was not a "rebuilding of David's fallen tent", and clearly the number of gentiles to be saved was not completed by then. Yet the 70 weeks prophecy extends to the very end of life as we know it, since it states point-blank that it was " decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place". So if these things have not all happened, and if the Amos prophecy isn't completed either, then the conclusion is that we're still in this time of gathering the gentiles and the 70th week has not yet come. Can we not also have the perspective of hindsight to see a dual fulfillment? The reason we "insist" as you put it that the Olivet Discourse "must" have a yet future fulfillment is because not all of the prophecies have come to pass. This is simple observation, not bullheadedness, and certainly not moreso than the "insistance" of preterists that things nobody observed happened anyway but nobody could see it. So we do in fact have "a very good reason" to conclude what we do, just as you believe you have "a very good reason" to conclude what you do. I don't accept your "invisible" fulfillments and you don't accept my "literal" fulfillments. But if you recognize that we don't have a lock on all this, then why keep painting futurists as somehow less rational and more in denial than preterists? Words like "weird" seem to contradict your admission of not having everything figured out. I could as easily "insist" that preterists are like the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes" and see things that aren't there.
Yes, I think a dual fulfillment is entirely possible... but I don't "insist" that it "must" just because I want it to. (I said that because that's the impression I'm getting from all your posts on this topic; you seem to think that futurists, including scholars of the level of Thomas Ice, are sadly lacking in exegetical skills and are mostly driven by some irrational need to be right.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2014 20:47:58 GMT -8
There is a difference between "symbolic fulfillment" and "invisible" don't you agree?
Regarding Daniel 11:36-45, how do you think it was fulfilled originally, as in in inter-testimental times? Do you see it as potentially describing further developments in Hasmonean/ Herodian history?
Also, I don't think I'm contradictory is saying I don't have all the answers (and none of us do) AND that such and such an interpretation on a passage seems weird to me. That's just called being honest with my perspective. Just because I think something is weird doesn't mean it CAN'T be true, it just means I have trouble seeing how it could be true. |
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 18, 2014 2:59:22 GMT -8
There is a difference between "symbolic fulfillment" and "invisible" don't you agree?
Regarding Daniel 11:36-45, how do you think it was fulfilled originally, as in in inter-testimental times? Do you see it as potentially describing further developments in Hasmonean/ Herodian history?
Also, I don't think I'm contradictory is saying I don't have all the answers (and none of us do) AND that such and such an interpretation on a passage seems weird to me. That's just called being honest with my perspective. Just because I think something is weird doesn't mean it CAN'T be true, it just means I have trouble seeing how it could be true. The only reason we know that John the Baptist was a "symbolic" fulfillment is because Jesus said so explicitly; the symbolism in Rev. is often explained explicitly; Jesus describin people as sheep and goats is obviously symbolic of people using their everyday experiences, as he did all the time with parables. Those are symbolic things. Where I think preterism goes wrong is in calling everything symbolic that would otherwise ruin its theory, yet being arbitrarily literal when it would bolster their theory. Whereas futurism looks for something in the text to go on, preterism looks for the invisible as evidence. This, like how one views the church and Israel, is another point that will keep the two views forever apart. I don't recall saying you thought you had all the answers, but the use of "weird" the way you did comes across as dismissive, as if preterism's ideas are sound but futurisms are irrational. I can say, as I have, that preterism makes no sense to me without calling it names. So this is a straw man; I never called lack of perfect understanding and calling names a contradiction. What I have been calling a contradiction is the manner in which preterism cherry-picks literal and figurative, and how you keep saying my view is based on nothing even after I point out that yours often suffers at least as much in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2014 16:54:54 GMT -8
I don't recall saying your view was based on nothing... But I'm not sure this back-and-forth about insinuations is really necessary. I'm not intending to denigrate you or your view, just to explain in which ways I have found it lacking (remember I once held to futurism). I don't think you're crazy or evasive, I just think your conclusions from the text are based on some pretty different fundamental assumptions. Gonna give you the last word here and focus on the other threads.
|
|
*