ghtan

I think Hosea 6:2 simply means God would not be angry with us forever, symbolised by a short two and three days. On what scripture do we base the millennial day view? On 2 Peter 3:8? Peter's point (3:9) is just that God is eternal and so he is not hurried into bringing everything to an end. If we press the meaning too far, might we run the risk of adding to scripture as warned by Rev 22:18?

The NT writers appeared to think that Jesus could return at any time, even during their generation. They obviously were not aware of, or did not subscribe to, the millennial day theory otherwise they would have known that Jesus was not coming back for another two thousand years and thus would not have phrased some of the things they said the way they did.

You might be able to read Rev 3:5 as a promise rather than a threat but the OT background to this verse may be Exodus 32:33 "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book." That reads like a threat that God will actually carry out. Apart from that, I think there is something else going on in Rev 13:8&17:8. The word translated "names" is actually in the singular i.e. technically it should be translated "name." I suspect it actually refers to Jesus' name e.g. as in Rev 14:1. That would resolve the apparent tension between Rev 13:8/17:8 and Rev 3:5/Ex 32:33.

Hi warrior. I think of election in general terms i.e. it simply means 'choice' or 'choosing'. It can be for a variety of things e.g. privilege, service. But with salvation I don't believe God chose beforehand (i.e. from eternity past as it is usually argued) whether a person should be saved. God's desire is for everyone to be saved. God makes the offer of salvation. We decide whether to accept that offer; it is resistible.

Moses' Israelites worshiped golden calf (freewill). Pharoah's Egypt opposed God (freewill). Both deserved punishment. God chooses (elect) to have mercy on Israelites but to harden Egyptians (sovereignty).

Nothing in Ex 9:16 suggests Pharoah did not have a choice. It is like a father saying to his son, "I raised you up to take over the business from me." Does the son have a choice? Very much so. Moreover, was God referring to Pharoah alone or all Egypt? More likely the latter. Because in v 15, God says, "...that would have wiped you off the earth." Who is the "you"? Only Pharoah? Hardly need to use a plague to wipe out one individual. More likely God was referring to all Egypt. That should follow through into v 16. As for Israel, God chose the nation, not individual Israelites. Those who belong to (spiritual) Israel - were saved. The choice to belong was up to every Israelite. Some chose to opt out - e.g. those who started worshiping idols instead - whereas some non-Israelites, e.g. Ruth, chose to opt in. Same today, God chooses (elect) the group who follows Christ to be saved. Whether we choose (freewill) to be in that group is up to each of us.

Everyone has a choice. Even Pharoah did. He chose to oppose God. But faced with the choice of losing a 600,000 slave workforce, he would hardly be expected to readily agree. No need to force him to say no.

I find it easier to think that all who are in Christ are chosen/elect. But it is our choice whether we want to be in Christ, hence the freewill.

Totally agree with you. I use the NIV most of the time - I think it is the best translation for study purposes - but very often the NLT makes the passages clearer and speaks to me devotionally. So most bibles have their usefulness.

I think the key word is "in-depth." To get the desired outcome, we need to use the right tools.

Honestly, I don't think any 'whole bible' commentary will be good enough for an in-depth study of such a difficult book as Revelation. Invest in a commentary just on Revelation itself.

Ok; thanks for info on Col 2:16. As for v 14, I don't think Paul meant that the OT Law no longer applies as a standard to follow but only that the Law's power over us is removed because "he forgave us all our sin" in the same verse.

Hi there! Out of interest, how does the sda reconcile its belief with Col 2:16 which says not to let anyone judge us by, among others, a Sabbath day? Btw, I agree with those who say that 'under the law' means we are not under the authority of the law in that the law no longer has power to punish us. Yet it does not mean the law no longer applies to us; just that the authority over us is now our Lord Jesus. So it does not mean we can sin as we like. God cannot be mocked (Gal 6:7).

If you want to know why some do not believe in the millennium, just pick up one of the more scholarly commentaries on Revelation. I find most of the authors are amils.

Since you're calling them "seal judgments" substantiate your claim. For each seal list: who is doing the judging? who is being judged? what is the judgment that was made? Do it for each seal. They are either "seal judgments" as a whole, each and every one of them, or they aren't. Period. To call them judgments without substantiating them as such indicates that someone is just making stuff up. To add to that (hope you don't mind, LD), why do the souls under the altar call out to God to judge the inhabitants of the earth (6:10) if God were already pouring out his judgment? And why does God not reply and say something like, "What do you think I am doing now?" Instead, he tells them to "wait a little longer"; doesn't it suggest that God has yet to pour out his judgment at that point?

Dan 2:44 says the rock is a kingdom.

What then is this rock that destroys all the kingdoms at Jesus' second coming?

I take it then that you think the rock that is cut out from the mountain is the millennial kingdom which Jesus will set up after his return. Why then does the dream picture it growing subsequently into a huge mountain to fill the whole earth? Sounds to me more like the spread of the gospel after Jesus' first coming.

It is in the article "the" before root. Compare NKJV with KJV.

Precisely, but there will probably be some die-hard KJV fans who will try to explain away that logical difficulty.

Did not notice KJV's curious translation of 1 Tim 6:10 until you pointed it out. Thanks. See that NKJV has corrected it though. Glad for you that you no longer rely on the KJV.

Looking back at your earlier post, you say you think Is 28 talks about the end time because what it prophesies has not been fulfilled in history. Some commentators think the covenant with death was some peace treaty with either Assyria or Egypt to protect Israel in case of attack. If so, this would be history and not future. The commentators may be wrong but why rely on a passage that does not clearly say it is about the end time? Revelation has enough.

I think what the passage means is that God has ensured that there is enough evidence in creation to show us that there is a God who created everything and so we should not worship an idol instead (v 23). It does not suggest that we can be saved that way. Having said that, I believe that if that knowledge leads some people to worship the God who created the universe without knowing who he is, and they have not heard the gospel, God will deal with them according to what they know and not reject them simply because they have not received Jesus. Most will fail such an evaluation but I don't think it necessarily means that all will. The latter might be given some sort of second chance.

Hmm...might you be reading too much into the text of Is 28? Verse 16 is used in the NT in reference to Jesus; how would it fit into your flow of thought for the surrounding verses?

Glad we sorted that out. For a moment, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me as I read Ezekiel 1. I do not doubt Ezekiel was a priest - after all, it says so in the text. But he was in exile. If you find a better reason why Daniel is not numbered among the prophets in the Jewish bible, let me know. I would be interested.