Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

Expand Messages
  • Tom Ricks
    Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary has some of the best work I ve seen on the early Genesis passages balancing
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological
      Commentary has some of the best work I've seen on the early Genesis
      passages balancing creation evidence for the age of the earth and the
      Hebrew text which he finds are not at odds.



      Tom



      ________________________________

      From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wray
      Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 PM
      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the
      millennium





      I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
      scripture and presents more questions than answers.

      The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
      situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
      billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
      Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
      Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
      you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.

      drjenney2 wrote:
      >
      >
      > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
      >
      > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which
      > flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by
      > Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
      >
      > .
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
      I m an amillennialist. I don t think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

        • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i


        --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Wray <wray@...> wrote:
        >
        > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
        > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
        >
        > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
        > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
        > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
        > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
        > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
        > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.
      • Georg S. Adamsen
        An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you think
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
          common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
          think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
          that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
          5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
          – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
          views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
          “published” book by book when he has finished them).



          It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
          premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
          have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
          helpful!





          Dr. Georg S. Adamsen

          Denmark



          PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
          institution, if any

          Fra: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
          Sendt: 13. september 2009 00:04
          Til: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          Emne: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium





          I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal.
          For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this
          statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

          • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space
          of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For
          even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed
          themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood]
          according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i

          --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> , Wray <wray@...> wrote:
          >
          > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
          > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
          >
          > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
          > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
          > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
          > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
          > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
          > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
          I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically." It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

            You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

            Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

            An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummation idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

            It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

            ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
            Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
            from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
            the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
            Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
            Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
            Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
            years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
            "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
            come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

            The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
            was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
            him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
            and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
            under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
            "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
            come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
            period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
            Apocalypse of the Blessed John

            It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.


            Alan Fuller,
            Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
            Available at Amazon.com or my web page
            http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
            I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.


            --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
            >
            > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
            > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
            > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
            > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
            > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
            > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
            > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
            > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
            >
            >
            >
            > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
            > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
            > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
            > helpful!
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
            >
            > Denmark
            >
            >
            >
            > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
            > institution, if any
            >
            >
          • George F Somsel
            Apparently you didn t read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established

               
              “As in my anger I swore,
              ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
              though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day—“today”—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
              “Today, if you hear his voice,
              do not harden your hearts.”
              8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
               
              The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
               george
              gfsomsel


              … search for truth, hear truth,
              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              defend the truth till death.


              - Jan Hus
              _________




              ________________________________
              From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
              To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:44:32 AM
              Subject: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

               
              I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically. " It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

              You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

              Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

              An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummati on idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

              It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

              ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
              Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
              from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
              the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
              Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
              Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
              Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
              years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
              "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
              come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

              The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
              was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
              him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
              and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
              under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
              "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
              come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
              period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
              Apocalypse of the Blessed John

              It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.

              Alan Fuller,
              Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
              Available at Amazon.com or my web page
              http://www.lulu com/arfuller
              I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.

              --- In revelation-list@ yahoogroups. com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
              >
              > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
              > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
              > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
              > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
              > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
              > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
              > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
              > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
              >
              >
              >
              > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
              > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
              > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
              > helpful!
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
              >
              > Denmark
              >
              >
              >
              > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
              > institution, if any
              >
              >







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
              Dear George, I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn t including you in everybody. I was including those who responded to my original post last week.
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear George,

                I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn't including you in "everybody." I was including those who responded to my original post last week. Specifically I think that would be drjenney2, and
                WrayZehrung. Also note that in the original post I gave Hebrews 4:4-9 KJV, so I appreciate you giving it again.

                Thank you,
                Alan Fuller

                --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                >
                > Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established
                >
                >  
                > “As in my anger I swore,
                > ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
                > though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain dayâ€"“today”â€"saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
                > “Today, if you hear his voice,
                > do not harden your hearts.”
                > 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
                >  
                > The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
                >  george
                > gfsomsel
                >
                >
                > … search for truth, hear truth,
                > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                > defend the truth till death.
                >
                >
                > - Jan Hus
                > _________
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.