Follower0fJesus

I understand your point that no one understands the plan of God, but I don't think you answered my question. Do you think it's possible that the authors wrote the letters through their own perspective, which was "the end of times will be in our generation". So what Jesus taught them regarding the end of times, they wrote based on their understandings, (and since they don't know the full plan of God, nor was it revealed). God let them write from their own understanding, in order to keep the secret knowledge hidden? and maybe this would explain why the style of writing is: "...end of the world is imminent".

6,000 years is a very accurate prediction: 2,190,000 days. Unless 6,000 years doesn't mean 6,000 years? I agree and disagree. I agree from a religious point of view, but disagree from a logical point of view. If messages in the Bible fight against themselves, there's only a few conclusions to draw from it. And this is going back to my original thought, that maybe the disciples were interpreting Jesus' message wrong. And therefore documented Jesus' words in their perspective (of the end coming soon). Because again, it was written that the disciples often misinterpreted what Jesus said. Does this seem like a possibility to you? Or do you think they were 100% infallible when writing.

You have to understand the message from the perspective of the person writing it. Let's say I'm Peter writing to you. I tell you, Marilyn, be prepared because the end is approaching. How would you interpret this message written to you? I would read it as, "within my time". Otherwise it's a vague redundant thing to say, because approaching never stops approaching.

I understand the meaning of "at hand". My question was regarding Peter warning his generation of the approaching end of times.

But regarding "end of all things", this is irrelevant if there is no consistency in time classification. Especially since there's no specific time frame given by Jesus or the disciples regarding end of times. Again, going back to Peter (an early church father), he was also one to say, "the end of all things is at hand". Since you referenced this, I'd like to point out it's a false prophecy, considering Jesus himself said, "no one knows the day or the hour". I take passages literally, that are meant to be taken literally. Peter is writing to other Christians, telling them the end is near. I don't see any symbolism in such a transparent verse. Also keep in mind, Peter isn't the only author to speak of times being "at hand". Also then, who decides what passages to take literally? This interpretation system could be applied to any verse.

Thanks for your input, George. 2,000 years (time), is actually non-existent relative to eternity. God doesn't operate on time, but he works around man's time. You can't assign God's time frame when convenient. If you want to say, "1 day to God is as 1000 years", then everything God says regarding time, is multiplied by 1000. So was the earth created in 6,000 years? Sabbath every 7,000 years? Furthermore, I think the phrase "1 day to God is as 1000 years", is a mere perspective for man to understand that God doesn't operate under our time. If God is eternal and time doesn't exist in eternity, then you could also say, 1 second is as a million years to God. There is no comparison between eternity and time. Look at the 'play' on words. 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day (from the verse). It's like saying, "God can turn these stones into children of Abraham", in other words, "He can do anything". Also, I don't consider a remote tribe of 100 people to be called a "nation". Which in Greek is synonymous to race. Maybe there's a race of 10 million people living in caves within the earth Aside from that, it doesn't answer the question why Peter said, "end of all things" to his own generation. Again, "end of all things" was written to people 2,000 years ago, not us or any future generation.

1 Peter 4:7 "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." Time written: 65-68 AD "At hand": near (in place or time) ἐγγύς Written to: "To the elect, exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," Why is Peter telling specific people (that generation), the end is at hand, if the end was not at hand for another 2,000 years plus? If I'm Peter, and I write a letter to someone claiming the end is at hand, I'm assuming it will happen within their time. The people who read that letter, surely assumed exactly what he wrote. "The end is almost near for us". Why would Peter assume the end of all things was at hand? Because Jesus taught it as well, and the signs were given of what would happen before the end times. So did Peter write his letter, meanwhile ignoring the "signs" that were to come beforehand? Did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to "l*e" in his letter, in order to get this message to others 2,000 years later?

I've been studying these verses for years, and all these answers I've heard of countless times, and none of them work. The "answers" are either a play on words/meanings or out of context references to events. Those 3 verses cross reference each other, and giving an answer to one by changing the meaning of words, doesn't answer any questions. Maybe those answers satisfy others, but not me. I've tried applying similar meanings, but the more I read, the more I realize they don't work. The more it seems Jesus really was preparing for a return within his generation. Also not sure what you mean by "personal help", and how that will answer any questions. Other than talking to someone who will lullaby you back into faith with sugar coated words.

Interesting you chose the word "truth", yet almost every answer here was different.

Your self righteous peace making isn't accepted by me, when you were the one contributing to insults and name calling, which you still continue to do in disguised complacency and supporting others who are as well. The same who complain this thread is too long, are the same making it longer. Your answers didn't convince me, so move on and make room for other answers.

When the God you trust says something that doesn't happen, why wouldn't you lose your faith.

Jesus used the fig tree in a parable the same way he explained, "When evening comes, you say, ‘The weather will be fair, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but not the signs of the times!" "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near" The fig tree was a representation of telling of signs. You can't assume every inclusion of the fig tree is referencing the Jewish nation. Otherwise, explain when Jesus killed the fig tree, in order to explain to his disciples they could do miracles greater than that. Also then, why would Jesus explain signs to a people that wouldn't be alive to experience it? If it were a future event that wouldn't affect that current generation, the information would be recorded in revelation (as it was). So far of all the vague baseless answers to these verses, the closest I've got to an answer is: since his disciples believed he would return in their time, they probably wrote in a Jesus-return-soon format. After all, there are verses which indicate they didn't understand everything he said.

Yes he did. You're taking John 11:26 out of context. "Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name." Matthew 24:9 Again referencing the original verse, Jesus says they won't die....until....he comes. I fail to see your "context" when you stitch verses together from different chapters. I gave you verses in context, and you failed to recognize them. "For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 Having a vision is different from it actually happening, and Jesus isn't talking about a vision. Also, "it still hasn't happened" isn't an argument. Greek word for until still means until. Let's see you squirm around this verse: "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." "It also means..." That's a poor argument. You're assigning meanings when it's convenient. "Not always generation" So every time Jesus said, "generation", he meant the literal meaning. But for this specific verse he meant "race"?...no. Thanks for proving my point, that you fill in the blanks with your own definitions, when convenient for your interpretation. Multiple interpretations exist.... and "Thus"...I'm right; you're wrong? Yes I remember it being irrelevant, to which I quoted every verse in context, that referred to "coming". But again you failed to recognize and your only argument is: "coming can mean anything"...meanwhile ignoring the context where it explains what it means.

I'm here to get answers, and people think that "any answer goes, as long as it doesn't offend me". The fact I can get 100 different answers for one question, proves something's wrong. People gave their opinions, I rebutted with proof from the Bible, and rather than giving a response (because they don't have one), they get offended. It tests your faith, sure. It did mine. Now I'm looking for answers. It speaks that I'm the only one actually trying to figure this out, rather than blindly believe these vague half-thought out answers.

"If it didn't happen, then it's not what it meant". Great argument. This is why people think religious people aren't educated.