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

Ezekiel

Expand Messages
  • Reidar Kristiansen
    The vision is from him who is,was and is to come,therefore the imagery also could be from the past. Reidar Kristiansen rki@start.no ... Få din egen
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 24, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The vision is from him who is,was and is to come,therefore the imagery also
      could be from the past.


      Reidar Kristiansen
      rki@...

      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Få din egen @...-adresse gratis på http://www.start.no/
    • Don K
      Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My apologies for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North Carolina, with four
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My apologies
        for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North Carolina, with
        four major speeches, and will not be able to respond to anything for a bit.
        Hopefully, my thoughts below will also cover some of the inquiries from Ed
        Garcia, and perhaps, to an extent, by George as well.

        In regards to your question, we know that the words mean that the events
        were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication and
        hermeneutic.
        By observing the normal, common (koine) meaning and usage of the words.
        By observing the context of their usage.
        By the lexical aids.
        It has always struck me as a bit strange that when we observe the use of
        mello, tachos, engus, and even en taxei, with their cognates, in
        non-eschatological contexts, that there is virtually no debate about the
        temporal imminence indicated by these terms. We seldom if ever hear anyone
        argue, for instance, that when the Jews passover was at hand (engus), or
        when "the time of the fruit drew near" (engizo, Mt. 21:34), this did not
        mean a temporal imminence. Examples could be multiplied. The point is that
        these are temporal expressions. (Engus of course also expresses spatial
        proximity, but the idea of nearness is still to the fore.)
        There is another element here, that I see virtually ignored in the
        literature, and that is the temporal contrasts.
        We often find expressions that prophetic events were far off (Numbers
        24:17f; Hebrews 11:13-16), and not near (Daniel 8:26; 12:4). The New
        Testament writers say that the Old Covenant prophets were told that the last
        days events they were foretelling were not for their times. However, the New
        Covenant prophets were told, and said that what the Old prophets anticipated
        was being fulfilled and was about to be consummated (1 Peter 1:10f). In
        Revelation, for instance, the Danielic predictions serve as the blueprint of
        the consummative events being foretold by John. What Daniel was told was not
        near--and thus he was instructed to seal the book-- was now so near in
        John's day that John was told not to seal the book. I do not find anywhere
        in the Apocalypse that John communicated the idea that the events he was
        foretelling were not near.
        If we can argue that "at hand" does not mean near, what will we argue that
        "not at hand" means? If quickly does not mean soon, then does "not near"
        mean it could happen very soon?
        These are but a few of the reasons why I disagree with the posit that the
        chronological indicators of Revelation are not all that important. The book
        is rife with indications that its fulfillment was near. The book is
        bracketed with warnings of the imminent consummation, and calls for ethical
        conduct in light of that soon coming climax. There is more on this than I
        have time to develop, but this issue alone emphasizes my point well, I
        think.
        Well, I have gone on long enough.
        Thanks for your thoughts and inquiry,
        Don K. Preston

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Alan Fuller" <rocsy@...>
        To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:48 AM
        Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Ezekiel


        >
        > Don K.,
        >
        > You write:
        > >>My problem is that when we extrapolate the Apocalypse into the
        > distant future, from John, or for that matter from us, we are
        > violating the temporal parameters established by the One who gave the
        > revelation to the visionary.
        > While it is somewhat customary to either ignore the time indicators
        > of the book, or to mitigate them into virtual meaninglessness, it
        > strikes me that it is a wiser course of action to seek the true
        > meaning of the apocalypsis within the sitz em leben of John's first
        > century world.<<
        >
        > I assume you mean "soon" and "quickly," as Edgar pointed out. What
        > meaning do these words have in the first century world, and what do
        > we base our understanding on?
        >
        > What method of interpretation was used to understand these things in
        > the first century world?
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Alan F.
        > Texas
        >
        >
        > --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don K" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
        > > Re: [revelation-list] EzekielI personally have no problem with the
        > idea that John was envisioning real events, in imagery of course. My
        > problem
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Alan Fuller
        Don, Thank you for taking time to make an excellent response to my post. It doesn t seem strange to me to view the mentioned words in a normal way in
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 30, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Don,

          Thank you for taking time to make an excellent response to my post.

          It doesn't seem strange to me to view the mentioned words in a normal
          way in non-eschatological contexts, but view them in another way in
          eschatalogical terms. Then again, when we use similar words today
          we're usually not, if ever, referring to a span of several years.
          whether a span of several years should be considered more temporal in
          regards to prophecy than several thousand I'm not sure. I think the
          context they're used in is the most important thing in eschatalogical
          terms.

          I think we can also find expressions in the OT that make prophetic
          events sound near (Isa 46:13 51:5 61:11, compare Ro 1:17 3:21-26 10:3-
          15 ).

          I think we do well to look at Daniel in relation to the "end times."
          We are told several times that the vision in Daniel eight is for the
          end times (8:17 19 26). So if we accept the traditional meaning and
          interpretation of Daniel eight the end times started about 550 BC.
          That's about the same time that Daniel eight claims to be written.
          That doesn't seem like many days to me.

          Daniel 12:4 asserts that the last vision of Daniel won't be
          understood until the end. Is it understood? If so when was the end
          where it became understood? Also, if it is understood I would like
          for the ones who understand it to give me a better explanation so
          that I might understand all of it myself.

          The questions you ask about "near" and "at hand" deserve a closer
          look. But I'm not yet convinced the words mean anything at all in
          and eschatological context. Not yet anyway, but I look forward to
          futher discussions.

          Again, thank you for your time.

          Alan F.

          --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don K" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
          > Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My
          apologies
          > for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North
          Carolina, with
          > four major speeches, and will not be able to respond to anything
          for a bit.
          > Hopefully, my thoughts below will also cover some of the inquiries
          from Ed
          > Garcia, and perhaps, to an extent, by George as well.
          >
          > In regards to your question, we know that the words mean that the
          events
          > were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication
          and
          > hermeneutic.
          > By observing the normal, common (koine) meaning and usage of the
          words.
          > By observing the context of their usage.
          > By the lexical aids.
          > It has always struck me as a bit strange that when we observe the
          use of
          > mello, tachos, engus, and even en taxei, with their cognates, in
          > non-eschatological contexts, that there is virtually no debate
          about the
          > temporal imminence indicated by these terms. We seldom if ever hear
          anyone
          > argue, for instance, that when the Jews passover was at hand
          (engus), or
          > when "the time of the fruit drew near" (engizo, Mt. 21:34), this
          did not
          > mean a temporal imminence. Examples could be multiplied. The point
          is that
          > these are temporal expressions. (Engus of course also expresses
          spatial
          > proximity, but the idea of nearness is still to the fore.)
          > There is another element here, that I see virtually ignored in the
          > literature, and that is the temporal contrasts.
          > We often find expressions that prophetic events were far off
          (Numbers
          > 24:17f; Hebrews 11:13-16), and not near (Daniel 8:26; 12:4). The New
          > Testament writers say that the Old Covenant prophets were told that
          the last
          > days events they were foretelling were not for their times.
          However, the New
          > Covenant prophets were told, and said that what the Old prophets
          anticipated
          > was being fulfilled and was about to be consummated (1 Peter
          1:10f). In
          > Revelation, for instance, the Danielic predictions serve as the
          blueprint of
          > the consummative events being foretold by John. What Daniel was
          told was not
          > near--and thus he was instructed to seal the book-- was now so near
          in
          > John's day that John was told not to seal the book. I do not find
          anywhere
          > in the Apocalypse that John communicated the idea that the events
          he was
          > foretelling were not near.
          > If we can argue that "at hand" does not mean near, what will we
          argue that
          > "not at hand" means? If quickly does not mean soon, then does "not
          near"
          > mean it could happen very soon?
          > These are but a few of the reasons why I disagree with the posit
          that the
          > chronological indicators of Revelation are not all that important.
          The book
          > is rife with indications that its fulfillment was near. The book is
          > bracketed with warnings of the imminent consummation, and calls for
          ethical
          > conduct in light of that soon coming climax. There is more on this
          than I
          > have time to develop, but this issue alone emphasizes my point
          well, I
          > think.
          > Well, I have gone on long enough.
          > Thanks for your thoughts and inquiry,
          > Don K. Preston
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.