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

Re: Ezekiel

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Apr 30, 2003

      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-
      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
      > 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
      > were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication
      > hermeneutic.
      > 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
      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
      > 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
      > 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
      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
      > 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
      > 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
      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
      > 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
      > 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.