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
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-
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
Again, thank you for your time.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Don K" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
> Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My
> for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North
> 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
> Garcia, and perhaps, to an extent, by George as well.
> In regards to your question, we know that the words mean that the
> were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication
> By observing the normal, common (koine) meaning and usage of the
> 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
> mello, tachos, engus, and even en taxei, with their cognates, in
> non-eschatological contexts, that there is virtually no debate
> temporal imminence indicated by these terms. We seldom if ever hear
> argue, for instance, that when the Jews passover was at hand
> when "the time of the fruit drew near" (engizo, Mt. 21:34), this
> mean a temporal imminence. Examples could be multiplied. The point
> these are temporal expressions. (Engus of course also expresses
> 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
> 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
> days events they were foretelling were not for their times.
However, the New
> Covenant prophets were told, and said that what the Old prophets
> was being fulfilled and was about to be consummated (1 Peter
> Revelation, for instance, the Danielic predictions serve as the
> 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
> John's day that John was told not to seal the book. I do not find
> in the Apocalypse that John communicated the idea that the events
> foretelling were not near.
> If we can argue that "at hand" does not mean near, what will we
> "not at hand" means? If quickly does not mean soon, then does "not
> mean it could happen very soon?
> These are but a few of the reasons why I disagree with the posit
> chronological indicators of Revelation are not all that important.
> is rife with indications that its fulfillment was near. The book is
> bracketed with warnings of the imminent consummation, and calls for
> conduct in light of that soon coming climax. There is more on this
> have time to develop, but this issue alone emphasizes my point
> Well, I have gone on long enough.
> Thanks for your thoughts and inquiry,
> Don K. Preston